Guest Post by Joshua Torrey
I have been on a hiatus. I have been laying off covenant issues and trying for the most part to play nice with everyone in the theological playground. But recently, I got to listen to the final chapters of my namesake, and it was within Joshua 23 & 24 that I got a profound look at the promises of God and proper Covenant Theology (CT).
There are certainly many varieties of CT. From Murray to Kline, there are great distinctions in the Reformed realm. And now with a growth of Baptist Federalists and New CT, there are large distinctions among Baptists as well. There are theological halfway points in between and on every side. But here in Joshua, I once again found one of the reasons I hold to what I do.
Principally, it is this: that between the fall of Adam and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, God’s covenant community is made up of regenerate and unregenerate members. This is reflected in the dual nature of every covenant. Every covenant has blessings and curses, conditional and unconditional promises. Theologies that attempted to diminish this duality or embellish portions above another only do disservice to the text in the name of systematic theology. I’ll address this a little more shortly. But first the text,
“Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. But just as all the good things the Lord your God has promised you have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has threatened, until the Lord your God has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. If you violate the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you.” – Joshua 23:14-16 (NASB)
Now, set aside the fact that Joshua depicts himself as about to die (this changes the context of “as for me and my house…” though doesn’t it?). Take a look at the perfect duality of God’s covenant administration. Just as He fulfills every promise so He also fulfills the curses. That I apply this duality to the New Covenant founded in Christ often bothers individuals. Hebrews seems to present this blessing/curse motif through typological means. So do many crucial portions of Romans (I’ll address a few texts from Romans shortly). So why do people take issue?
Because for many, a paradigm that permits covenant members to receive blessing or curse, seems to make salvation itself works-oriented. If it’s works-oriented, it’s not of grace. And if it’s not of grace, I’ve undermined the entire doctrine of justification. Thankfully, I don’t believe I have done this or slipped down the slope of such logic. I don’t believe Peter and Paul are guilty of it when they require people to “call on the name of the Lord” either (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13). The type of works-based salvation that must be rejected is the one the makes works meritorious in nature. In simple terms, it is the concept that a certain action, or set of actions, brings us into good standing with God. I do not support this perspective or this type of theology.
What I support is a theology that God provides salvation to those who have faith because of His grace. Faith is no meritorious work. But it must be done. Those who are to be saved must believe. And according to James, this faith must not be dead (found without works). So how does this impact my view of covenant membership? Let me lay a little ground work and then turn to Paul in Romans 9.
The trap most modern CT falls into is the thought that without faith we should not be counted as in covenant with God. Baptists demonstrate this with their practice of “believers” baptism. And many Presbyterians demonstrate this with their rejection of paedocommunion (waiting instead for a “confession”). But both of these perceive faith in a meritorious sense. An expression of faith brings us into the covenant benefits of God. Instead, I see the Scriptures (and consistent Reformed teaching) saying that God brings us into covenant with Him before faith. Circumcision testifies to this and we see the effects of it in the book of Joshua. It is after being brought into this covenant that the blessings and curses are laid upon the people of Israel. Those with faith receive the blessing of the covenant. And because they know this to be true and have seen it they should also know that those without faith receive the curse.
But do we see this kind of thinking in the New Testament? I think we do quite explicitly,
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” – Romans 9:1-3, 6-7
Here Paul is responding to the theological question of why those with the covenant blessings (Rom 9:4-5) receive curses. And Paul’s point is simple: God’s word cannot fail. Just like in the passage of Joshua, God’s covenant blessings are a reminder to the covenant people that those who shrink back from God will receive the curses. But does Paul apply this type of thinking to the church? I not only believe that he does, but I believe the only way to explain Romans 11:17-24 consistently is from this covenantal perspective. This is why Paul stresses that unbelief and faith are the criteria for this relationship in the vine (Rom 11:20, 23).
Ultimately in soteriology, our faithfulness to the covenant (the fulfillment of these faith passages in Romans 11) cannot be meritorious. Our faithfulness to the covenant is purchased in Christ. In faith we receive the blessing of the covenant because Christ received the curse of the covenant. But there remains those who enter the covenant and trample upon the faithfulness of Christ by their lack of faith (Heb 10:29).
This is where the value of Joshua’s statement comes front and center in practicality. Those seeking to disassociate God’s promises from His cruses unwittingly neglect both. Those who try and pit “conditional covenants” against “unconditional covenants” have missed the entire point. There are no covenants that God has made apart from the fulfillment of His Son. All covenants in this regard are covenants of grace. But there are covenants in which God has permitted non-elect men to attempt the conditions apart from grace. These shall fail and break the covenant bringing the curses upon themselves. And in seeing the faithfulness of God in these curses, we know the faithfulness of God in the blessings of the covenant (Josh 23:15). This is a proper covenant theology. This is Joshua’s covenant theology.<>
