I distinctly remember being at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia when Sinclair Ferguson preached this sermon. What struck me most was the way he said that all the promises of God are, to us who believe, “Yes and Amen” in Christ because He said ‘yes’ to the all the promises of God, even to the promise of covenant curses. It was a memorable message. You can listen here.

I posted these a while ago but I want to put them out there again for any who have not seen them. Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters, delivered two lectures at Westminster Seminary California entitled, “Two Adams, Two Covenants, Two Righteousnesses.” These are some of the most careful, scholarly treatments of one of the most difficult, and yet, most important aspects of Scripture and the inner workings of the doctrine of justification. If you have time listen to the lectures below:

Two Adams, Two Covenants, Two Righteousnesses #1
Two Adams, Two Covenants, Two Righteousnesses #2

Dr. Waters gave a lecture, while at WSC, on “Reflections on an ‘Emerging’ Reading of Jesus and the Kingdom”.

The guys over at Creed or Chaos have a helpful post about Augustine and the prelapsarian covenant between God and Adam, commonly called the “Covenant of Works.” You can find it here.

There has been so much confusion recently over the way we are supposed to view the two testaments. This confusion has emanated from the pens of several very prolific theologians in the past decade. Without spending a great deal of time on the particular instances, I would like to offer a quote by Richard Gaffin in regard to the New Perspective on Paul. Gaffin writes:

Gaffin’s analysis is profound. He has hit on two of the most, if not the two single most important elements of approaching a covenantal Bible. The first is the remnant principle. We cannot look at the writings of members of the covenant in an uncritical manner when we know that even during the Old Testament there were many covenant members who had departed from the pure, grace oriented, Christocentric understanding of Scripture. This is seen in Elijah and the seven thousand God had preserved from bowing the knee to Baal. It is also seen in the fact that Simeon and Anna were waiting for the Christ. When Anna finally sees Jesus she goes and reports to all “who were looking for redemption in Jerusalem.” Not all in Jerusalem were looking for the Chirst. Many were trusting in their own righteousness. This was not a matter of Jewish exclusivity. The parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee proves this. Both were Jews, both were members of the covenant. One was trusting in what he did. One was trusting in God to have mercy on Him.

The fact is, that there were Jews in the OT period and during Paul’s day that were not reflecting the religion of Scripture. That is, they were not part of the remnant of believing Israelites who were trusting in the Christ. Paul himself tells us in Romans 11:5 and 6, “At this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Coupled with this, then, is the idea of a canonical approach to a covenantal book. If the Bible is structured by covenant, then we should expect this to serve as a safeguard against our introduction of extra-biblical materials into the hermeneutical process. The Jewish Scriptures were, by virtue of their covenantal nature, Christian Scriptures. They were always pointing God’s people to Christ. This is what we are told in Hebrews 11 about Moses, “By faith, Moses…esteemed the reproach of Christ greater treasures than the riches of Egypt.” We are told that David, “being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne. He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption (Acts 2:30-31).”

The point has not been sufficiently made that there was a right and a wrong way to interpret Scripture in the Old Covenant economy. Under the Old Testament there were believing Jews who were trusting in Christ and seeing how the Scriptures testified to Him (though they did not know when He would come or that His name would be Jesus). They knew more than we often credit them with knowing. This was possible by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. But, there were also many–one could even argue most–Jews who did not understand the Jewish Scripture accurately. This is because they were kept blind to the Christological intent of prophetic word. This is precisely why we cannot put the Jewish Scripture on par with other Jewish writings–nor can we stress the need for Jewish interpretations of Scripture when the Bible gives us the interpretation in the pages of the New Testament. While even today we cannot simply accept whatever interpretations people in the visible church are promoting, it was the same in the OT and in the days of Paul.

[1] Richard Gaffin “A Reformed Critique of the New Perspective,” http://www.myteacherpages.com/webpages/MCSPELLMAN/files/A%20Reformed%20Critique%20of%20the%20New%20Perspective,%20by%20Richard%20Gaffin.htm

With the recent loss of an unborn child Rick Philips wrote a blog post offering comfort and help to those who have experienced a similar loss. Rick offers some helpful thoughts to grieving parents. One woman commented that she had lost two babies at the 11th week and had not had much sucess in coming to a settled position about what the Bible says about where they would spend eternity. Rick responded with an interesting post that can be found here. He asserts that the Bible teaches that the infants of believers who die in infancy are “justified by the blood of Christ” and therefore go to heaven when they die. The support he gives for this is not all that convincing, and, I would argue, creates more problems with the explanation of the covenant promises and the doctrine of reprobation.

In response to his first point that “Just as we teach our little children to call God ‘Father’, we believe that our infant children belong to God by virtue of the covenant of grace, which says, ‘I will be your God and the God of your children.’ Likewise, Paul says that the children of believers are “holy” unto the Lord (1 Cor. 7:14). All this indicates that by virtue of our faith, we should understand that our children begin life in fellowship with our God,” Rick fails to explain the difference between covenant children being “internally holy” and “externally holy” (For a good treatement of the history fo this debate I would recommend John Gersner Jr.’s doctoral dissertation). Rick also seems to be making the claim that we should presume that our children are believers from infancy. This is not necessarily the veiw shared by all who embrace the biblical teaching of the covenant of Grace. Many would say that we do not presume that they are or are not yet regenerate. The best way I have had it explained is to say is that the children of believers are Federally Christian (a term that denotes what they are legally by virtue of the covenant of grace, i.e. they are under the Kingship of Christ in the visible church). This is not the same as saying that they are born again.

“But how can infants who die be saved without personal faith? I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit” (X.3). In other words, faith is for those in this life. But for those cases in which God has sovereigntly ordained that they will either never enter this life or never possess the faculties for faith, we should understand that upon their deaths elect children are immediately regenerated into glory. We know for a fact that at least some covenant infants who die are elect (see below, re: David’s son), and the only way such a child could enter heaven is by immediate regeneration apart from faith. But I will happily go further and say again that I see no biblical reason to believe that any covenant children who die in infancy or before birth are not elect. The only thing Jesus ever says about them is “Let them come to me, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Therefore, we should believe that our children who die in or before infancy are elect and were regenerated through the Spirit by our Savior into glory”

In response to Rick’s second point, I would first of all commend his use of the confession to show that if any elect infants die in infancy they will be saved because God first regenerates them and then gives them saving faith in Jesus Christ. But I can not agree with his use of the account of the death of David’s son. We have no reason to believe that David meant he would be with his son in heaven as over against going to be with him in the grave (or the place of the dead, “Sheol”). We do not know whether David meant heaven or the grave, therefore, we ought not appeal to this vague example. Finally, Rick seems to go further than the confession when he says, “I will happily go further and say again that I see no biblical reason to believe that any covenant children who die in infancy or before birth are not elect.” The confession says, “all elect infants who die in infancy…” I am not saying that Rick is misinterpreting the confession, but I am saying that we should not go further than the Assemblymen on this issue since the Bible does not give us more reason to do so.

I only raise these concerns because I think that we make a mistake leading people to think that they should view all their children as elect simply because they are part of the covenant community. God has given us promises to be a God to us and our descendants after us, but He has also conditioned those promises with the demand for personal (not parental) faith. I realize that Rick is not saying that it is based on parental faith, but this is a question of how we are to view our children (not just infants who die in infancy) by virtue of the Covenant of Grace. Even though the children of Abraham had the covenant sign didn’t mean that they had the thing that the sign pointed to. The best comfort we can give grieving parents is to tell them that our God has given us promises and we should trust His sovereign will in the fulfillment of those promises to everone to whom they are due. If we say that He fulfills them to all our infants we must go further and say He will fulfill them to all our children. When all our children are not converted who has failed? It seems to me that the answer would have to be God if we believe that these promises are made unconditionally to our children.

As I have been working on my Th.M on the Song of Songs I have been more and more impressed with the biblical theology that structures Solomon’s thoughts. It has not been an easy task to bring together the biblical theological themes while at the same time doing justice to the text. Here is one small section of my work (which needs serious revision) that starts to develop these concepts in an attempt to prove the Christology of the greatest of Solomon’s Songs:

“As we look at the unraveling of the covenant promise in Scripture we soon begin to see that there is a sphere in which this promise occurs. What is lost by Adam in the Garden because of his sin is restored to man throughout redemptive history by Christ. The Garden of Eden is the first place where God dwells in communion with man. When man is forced to leave the Garden (representing the breach of communion between the creature and the Creator) he is driven into a world that is ravished by the effects of sin. Thorns and thistles now cover the ground. Fertile places become barren wastelands. Streams dry up and plants whither. When God chooses a people for Himself He brings them into the wilderness (representative of these effects of sin) and there He begins to fulfill His covenant promises to them. He comes to dwell with them, and He becomes like them by dwelling in the same place that they dwell (i.e. in a Tent). The Tabernacle is the first step in the restoration of Eden.
The presence of God is the source of living waters that is meant to make the people of God into a fruitful garden/vineyard. When God finally brings Israel into the promised land (also a partial renewal of Eden—a land flowing with milk and honey) He raises up a king, Solomon, to build a more established place of dwelling—the Temple. The Temple was to be inlaid with cedar. A diversity of botanical images were to be carved around it. The Temple really was a typical stepping stone in the restoration of Eden. Ellen F. Davis explains the significance of the decorative symbolism:

As the lengthy description of the Temple (1 Kings 6-7) shows, the Temple is designed as a Garden. Idealogicaly, it is a second Eden (legend has it that the Temple was built on the spot where the Garden of Eden stood). The cedar paneled walls were carved ‘all about with’ palm trees,’ open flowers, and cherubim (1 Kings 6:29). Before the Holy of holies stood ten golden lanpstands shaped like flowers (1 Kings 7:49). In the forecourt were two great bronze pillars (1 Kings 7:18-19, 42), each a stylized tree of life surmounted by a lily
shaped capitol. Nearby was a huge bronze basin also shaped like a lily (1 Kings 7:26). Small wash basins rested on stands with cherubim , lions and palm trees (1 Kings 7:36). Pomegranites, lions, palm tress, lilies and cedars. All these are features of the paradise that is both the lover’s landscape and the woman herself. The language of the Song leads us into the locked garden of the Temple precinct.(1)

The Scriptures teach that all these symbols (i.e. gardens, tents, various aspects of the Temple, and Jerusalem) find a rich fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and consequently in His people. Philip Ryken explains that the door of the Temple “really was like the gates of Paradise. And for many people the way of access was still denied. Unless they were priests they would never see the golden wonders inside. Only the High Priests would enter that most holy place. Yet however limited it was there was access. You see God was opening back up the way to Paradise. You might think of Solomon’s temple as a kind of spiritual portal. The paradise lost could be regained.”(2) The covenant promise of the restored presence of God comes to its climax, in that point in redemptive history, in the days of Solomon with the completion of the Temple. A glory cloud came down upon the holy place—representing the Divine presence. But Solomon understood, even at that time of fulfilled promises, that there was another temple that God would dwell in. No sooner had the glory cloud descended upon the place where the priests ministered that Solomon said to the people, “Will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less than this house that I have built (1 Kings 8:27).”

Solomon understood that the covenant promises, typified in the Temple that he had built, would be fulfilled in God Himself. Jesus explicitly declares Himself to be the antitype of the Temple. Despite the fact that the Temple He alludes to, at least referentially, in Matthew 12:6 and John 2:19-21 is not the one built by Solomon, it is hard to escape the fact that the redemptive significance of Solomon’s Temple in view as well. In the Gospels Jesus is said to be the plei/on Solomon and the mei/zo,n Temple. The building of the Temple was Solomon’s greatest achievement and it lay at the heart of the Davidic Covenant. Much of the language of the Song comes from the promises of the Davidic covenant and find their significance of the Temple. Though, at this point, we will not consider the role of the King-Shepherd in the Song that also can be demonstrated to be based on the Davidic Covenant.

This leads us to a few examples from the writings of Jonathan Edwards in association with what has been stated. Edwards’ is one of the few expositors in church history who was more consistent with a grammatical-historical method while always guiding these principles with a theological method. It could be said that, at times, he held a covenantal view of the Song. This can be demonstrated based on the comments he makes concerning particular symbols in the Song. Concerning the reference to “oil” in the Song, Edwards writes:

The excellencies both of bridegroom and bride are compared to spices, chap. 1: 12-14; 4:6, 10, 13, 14, 16; 5:5,13; 8:2, and ointment perfumed with spices, chap. 1:3; 4:10. The same spices were made use of to represent spiritual excellencies in the incense, and anointing oil in the tabernacle and temple, and also in the oil for the light.(3)

With regard to the symbolism of pomegranates he writes:

The fruits of the spouse are often compared to pomegranates in this song. Chap. 4:3,13; 6:7; 8:2. So the spiritual fruits of the church of God are represented by pomegranates in the tabernacle and temple. The spouse is in this song said to be like the palm-tree. Chap. 7:7,8. So was the church of Israel, whose representation were the seventy elders, typified by seventy palm-trees. Exod. 15:27. So the temple was everywhere covered with cherubim and palm-trees, representing saints and angels. 1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35; 7:36. 2 Chron. 3:5. So in Ezekiel’s temple. Ezekiel 40:16.(4)

In His comments on Song of Songs 2:14, Edwards’ suggests that the stairs are an allusion to the
stairs of the Temple:

“O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice.” There is probably respect here to the rock of mount Zion, on which Solomon’s house was built, or of the mountain of the temple, and to the stairs by which they ascended that high rock, to go up to Solomon’s palace. See Neh. iii. 15. and xii. 37. or the stairs by which they ascended through the narrow courts into the temple; it comes much to the same thing, whether we suppose the rocks and stairs referred to, to be of the mountain of Solomon’s palace or temple, for both were typical of the same thing, and both mountains seemed to have been called by the same name, mount Zion…Her love to the spiritual Solomon causes her to remain near his house, about the mountain on which his palace stands, watching at his gates, and waiting at the posts of his doors, and by the stairs by which he ascends to his house, but yet hides herself as if ashamed, and afraid, and unworthy to appear before him, like the woman that came behind Christ to touch the hem of his garment.(5)

Concerning the symbolism of the tent and curtain in chapter 1:5, Edwards again makes reference to the redemptive significance of the Tabernacle and Temple:

“As the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.” That the spouse in this song is compared to a tent, and to the curtains of the tabernacle and temple, is an evidence that this song is no ordinary love song, and that by the spouse is not meant any particular woman, but a society, even that holy society, the church of God. It is common in the writings of the Old Testament to represent the church of God by a tent, or tents, and a house and temple, but never a particular person. See Isa. liv. 2. Zech. xii. 7. Isa. xxxiii. 20. Lam. ii. 4, 6. Isa. i. 8. And the tabernacle and temple were known types of the church, and the curtains of both had palm-trees embroidered on them, which are abundantly made use of to represent the church. The church of God is called a house, in places too many to be mentioned. The church used to be called the temple of the Lord, as appears by Jer. vii. 4. The church is represented by the temple, as is evident by Zech. 4:2-9.

These are only a few of the examples of a covenantal approach to the Song being worked on in the writings of Jonathan Edwards. Criticisms could be raised at many points and the charge of employing an allegorical method could be leveled against him from time to time. However, based upon the definitions, guidelines, and methods proposed it cannot be said that Edwards’ has no theological, or for that matter grammatical-historical grounds, for drawing many of these conclusions.

(1) Ellen F. Davis Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2000) p. 270
(2) This except was taken from a sermon on 1 Kings 6:37-38. It was preached on September 9, 2007 at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91107228406

(3) Jonathan Edwards Notes on the Bible p. 359
(4) Ibid., p. 359
(5) Ibid. p. 359