Old Testament Covenants
Sealed with an Oath_ Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Volume 23): New Studies in Biblical Theology
Williamson highlights several important concepts that contribute to a further understanding of the issues related to the Old Testament covenants. First, although Williamson denies an Adamic covenant due to the lack of textual support, the concept itself was new to me.[1] Specifically, my exposure to the arguments between covenantal theology and dispensationalism has been limited, so the author’s engagement with the possibility of a covenant of grace that subsumes the remaining covenants added to my understanding of Reformed theology.[2] Second, I had not recognized the reversal of creation and subsequent re-creation associated with the flood story. In the creation story, water precedes human and animal life, but the flood reverses the process and water destroys life. Instead of separating water, the water combines to cause chaos. However, order is ultimately restored in God’s re-creation process, and Noah is commanded to carry out the creation mandate. Thus, according to Williamson, in opposition to federal theology, creation has priority over the covenant, which leads to the renewal of all things and a universal blessing that binds all the Old Testament covenants.[3]
Importantly, Williamson also provides a number of insights that contributed to my understanding of the issues regarding how the Old Testament covenants impacted the message of the prophets. Specifically, Williamson provides threads of connective tissue between the Old Testament covenants and the new covenant message of the prophets by highlighting its national and international aspects and its continuity and discontinuity.[4] First, Ezekiel 37:24-28 continues to focus on the nationalistic implications for Israel and its restoration and reunification that looks back at the covenant with Abraham to make Israel a great nation (Gen 12:1-3). However, the everlasting covenant in verse 26 not only looks back to the universal blessing within the Abrahamic covenant, but it also looks forward to a future international blessing that reclaims all the nations through the line of David. Second, the continuity between the previous covenants and the new covenant referred to in the prophets is striking. Williamson highlights the continuity by explaining that the new covenant encompasses the same nation, the same obligation, and the same objective.[5] The same nation of Israel echoes the covenant promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), the same obligation echoes the Mosaic law covenant (Exod 19:5-6), and the same objective of a divine-human reconciliation echoes the Davidic line (2 Sam 7:12-17) and its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. However, the discontinuity between the prophetic voice of the new covenant and the previous covenants may be even more striking. It is difficult to state the critical distinction more elegantly than Walter Brueggemann who states, “The commandments will not be an external rule which invites hostility, but will now be an embraced, internal identity-giving mark.”[6] The prophetic message points to a radical internalization that not only impacts identity, but also empowers obedience through the power of the Spirit, which beautifully encompasses the previous covenant initiatives of nation, law, and reconciliation into a new eschatological cosmic reality (see Jer 24:7; 31:33; 32:39-40).
Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions
Many believers continue to be consumed with an insatiable desire to understand God’s prophetic future. However, Richard Pratt not only asks whether it is possible to know a future but, by exploring the role of historical contingencies subsequent to Old Testament prophecies, he also asks whether believers ought to even speculate about a prophetic future. Pratt’s contribution to my understanding of how to interpret prophetic texts and predictions begins with his assertion that it is possible that the prophets predicted events that did not and will not ever occur because of certain human reactions to those predicted events, which Pratt identifies as historical contingencies. [7] More specifically, Pratt identifies three types of prophetic predictions. First, predictions qualified by conditions, which explicitly made prophecy dependent upon human response; second, predictions qualified by assurances, which affirm that some prophecy is inevitable without identifying its method of occurring; and third, predictions without qualifications also known as unqualified predictions, which were subject to implicit conditions, thus also dependent upon human response.[8]
The essay necessarily engages the age-old debate regarding God’s immutability, which leads to an exploration of the theological implications of understanding the prophetic texts. The argument might be simplified as follows: if God is completely immutable, then God would never change His mind, which calls God’s relationality and man’s responsibility into question. Alternatively, if God is completely mutable, then His omniscience comes into question, and God becomes no different than the capricious and pantheistic gods of the ancient Near East. Accordingly, God’s sovereignty and God’s relationality must be held in tension otherwise either God’s sovereign power or God’s relational love is undermined. Thus, Pratt concludes that God’s providence and immutability are complementary and asserts that the prophets’ “did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations.”[9] Pratt’s article has contributed to my understanding of how to interpret the prophetic texts and predictions by providing a method of applying God’s sovereign relationality to the prophetic message. By holding God’s immutability and providence in tension, the payoff is a greater understanding for passages where God changes His mind, a greater appreciation for predictions that do not happen, and a greater recognition of the importance of human involvement in prophetic texts.
If historical contingencies have the capability to affect outcomes, then the question remains as to whether security in future events is even possible. Pratt solves this problem by suggesting that the Old Testament covenants provided parameters or boundaries for the expectations surrounding future events.[10] In other words, regardless of the nature or impact of the historical contingencies, God never violates His divine covenants. Thus, both the prophets and the Old and New Testament believers can find security in God’s promises. Furthermore, these covenantal promises inform and impact the interpretation and exposition of prophetic passages in two significant ways. First, from a practical perspective, the interpreter and expositor can properly and rationally dismiss the embarrassment of unfulfilled modern speculative predictions that come and go by focusing on the subjunctive rather than the imperative, the “might” rather than the “must.”[11] Second, instead of diminishing the importance of prophetic predictions, historical contingencies actually accentuate the role of believers by highlighting the importance of active participation with a God in control of forming a future. In other words, the interpreter should focus less on foreknowledge and more on formation.[12] By effectively communicating the reality of historical contingencies within an environment of God’s sovereign relationality, the expositor can encourage believers to rest in God’s sovereignty and simultaneously join in God’s purposes.
Covenantal Reflection on a Prophetic Text
From one who has executed thousands of real estate transactions during his career, it is quite difficult to pass up the opportunity to analyze the real estate deal consummated by the prophet in Jeremiah 32. After being thrown into prison for prophesying the demise of Judah and the exile of Zedekiah, the king asks why Jeremiah speaks such things (Jer 32:1-5). In response, the prophet explains that he is going to buy a piece of real estate for seventeen shekels (Jer 32:6-19). In what appears to be a moment of insanity, Jeremiah seems to buy a worthless piece of land soon to be captured by Babylon. However, the prophet’s act clearly signals that Yahweh has a future for Judah when He states, “Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (Jer 32:15).[13] It is a future both reflected within the previous covenants and ratified in a new covenant.
Jeremiah then says a prayer that refers to God as the creator of heavens and earth that echoes the re-creation activity reflected in the flood account and Noahic covenant (Gen 9:11; Jer 32:16-19). The prophet continues his prayer with a reminder of the exodus event and the bountiful land, which alludes to the promises to Abraham (Gen 15:18-21; Jer 32:33). Jeremiah then references the law commands given to the Israelites under the Mosaic covenant that were not obeyed, which resulted in disaster (Exod 19:5-6; Jer 32:23-24). Regardless of the profound disobedience, Yahweh tells Jeremiah to buy the land because Israel has a future; God’s kingdom is eternal through the line of David (2 Sam 7:12-17; Jer 32:25).
Jeremiah’s integrative approach provides guidance to the interpreter by weaving a message of continuity that leads not to covenant replacement but to covenant fulfillment, a new covenant that is very much the same as the old covenants, yet radically different. The salvation oracle begins in verse 36: God will gather His people to safety, give them one heart, and make an eternal covenant with them (Jer 32:36-39). Jeremiah not only looks forward to life after the immediate exile, but also to a life lived eternally free from exile. Williamson suggests the ultimate objective of the new covenant is a renewed relationship with Yahweh where the essence or inner being of humanity, both the heart and personality of believers, is fundamentally changed by God Himself.[14] The new covenant is initiated by God, deployed by God, and executed by God; thus there is “no possibility of breaking this new covenant.”[15] Critical to exposition, the result of the new covenant is obedience, not an obedience empowered by human effort, but an obedience empowered by God’s effort in man, which fulfills the earlier covenants. Yahweh’s new covenant plan is not centered on changed behavior, but instead, a radical transformation of man’s very essence, a new creation as God places awe in the heart of man through the Spirit that empowers obedience (Jer 32:40; cf 2 Cor 5:17). In sum, Jeremiah’s miserable real estate deal will not put the prophet into bankruptcy after all, but instead, God declares He will restore the fortunes of Israel (Jer 32:44).
_____________________________________
[1] Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, vol. 23, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 58.
[2] Ibid., 23:52–54.
[3] Ibid., 23:75–76.
[4] Ibid., 23:179–181.
[5] Ibid., 23:153.
[6] Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 293.
[7] Richard L. Pratt Jr., “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and J. I. Packer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 183.
[8] Ibid., 183–190.
[9] Ibid., 183.
[10] Ibid., 191.
[11] Ibid., 195.
[12] Ibid., 196.
[13] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
[14] Williamson, Sealed with an Oath, 23:164–165.
[15] Ibid., 23:157.
Bibliography
- Brueggemann, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
- Pratt Jr., Richard L. “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” In The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and J. I. Packer, 180-203. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
- Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. Vol. 23. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007.
