Christ and Covenant Theology by Cornelis P. Venema

P&R Publishing, 2017, 462pp

For my next trick, I, a convinced Baptist will review a book on covenant theology. Maybe that seems a bit like a strict teetotaler venturing a view on the finest vintage port, when never a drop has touched their lips. Or a Vegan discussing the best cuts of beef, when all they know is nut roasts and cabbage. Covenant theology and Baptists? Er,  no.

Well, it's a yes, actually. Covenant theology isn't the preserve of Presbyterians and other paedobaptist types. Baptists get a look in too. After all, we believe the Bible and there's a lot of covenanty stuff in there. The thing is, what's the nature of the various biblical covenants, and how do they relate to each other?

For starters, did the relationship between God and Adam take the form of a covenant, and if so, what kind of covenant was it? Important, this one. What we make of the Adamic administration will help to shape our view of subsequent covenant dispensations. Venema argues convincingly that the arrangement between God and Adam in the Eden took the form of a covenant. That applies, even though the word berith isn't used in Genesis 1-3, or elsewhere in Scripture to describe the arrangement, with the possible exception of Hosea 6:7. Venema cautions against word/matter fallacy insisting, De vocabulo dubitetur, so salva ("the word may be in doubt, but the matter is certain"), p. 422. In other words, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not exactly a pigeon, is it? 

The essential elements of a covenant being present, Reformed theologians have variously labelled the relationship that obtained between God and Adam as a "covenant of works/nature/life". If Adam had obeyed the terms of the covenant, his reward from God would have been eternal life and blessedness for himself and all humanity in him. The penalty for breaking the covenant was death for Adam and all humanity. 

Scholars following the lead of Meredith Kline hold that the "covenant of works" was established on the basis of strict merit. Adam's obedience would have earned him and all men in him eternal life in fellowship with God. Venema begs to differ. The promised blessings far exceed Adam's just deserts. Perfect obedience was simply God's due and in itself merited no reward. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of "some voluntary condescension on God's part" by which the Creator covenanted to reward Adam's obedience. If there is merit here, it is "covenanted merit", not strict merit. 

A nifty Tabular Comparison of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Second London Baptist Confession (SLBC) shows that Baptists followed the Presbyterians in regarding the arrangement between God and Adam in covenantal terms. See Chapter VII. The wording of point 1 of this chapter is virtually the same in both confessions. For some reason the Baptists dropped the clarifying statement in WCF VII.2. Not sure why. Would anyone notice if I popped it back in?  Greg Nichols has a helpful treatment of the Adamic Covenant in Appendix 2 of his Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2014, p. 321-358). He agrees with Venema that while the "covenant of works" demanded perfect obedience from Adam, it operated on the basis of God's undeserved favour, not strict merit in terms of the immeasurable reward offered. 

Adam failed to win the blessings of life eternal for humanity under the "covenant of works". But all was not lost. Both the WCF and SLBC state that, the Lord was pleased to make a "covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ" (WCF VII. 3 SLBC VII. 2). Christ is the covenant head of God's new humanity, as Adam was the covenant head of sin-ruined humanity. According to Reformed expositors, this covenantal understanding of Adam and Christ is borne out by Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 42-49. 

From Adam to Moses. A dispute has arisen in the Reformed world as to whether the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the "covenant of works". Kline and those who follow his line insist that the Sinaiatic dispensation promised blessing in return for strict obedience. Although Venema makes no reference to him here, the Puritan John Owen also advocated the republication view, which proved influential among early Particular Baptists. Given the emphasis on law in the Mosaic covenant and the link between blessing and obedience/curse and disobedience in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the Owen/Kline view seems to have something going for it. Leviticus 18:5 seems to bear this out. 

Venema gives a fair summary of the views of Reformed theologians who argue that the Moasic covenant was in some sense a republication of the covenant of works. He then proceeds to pick that position apart. In terms of Reformed Orthodoxy, the WCF sets the Mosaic economy in the context of the covenant of grace (VII.5). The SLBC omits this material, as the Particular Baptists tended to hold that the old covenant was  a covenant of works that was subservient to the covenant of grace. Be that as it may, the decider on this issue isn't historical theology, but Scripture. 

The author gives special attention to the republication lot's trump card, Leviticus 18:5. The apostle Paul for one seems to say that the text in question promised life as a reward for obedience, which is a bit covenant of worksy, to say the least. See Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5. Venema places Leviticus 18:5 within the context of the Mosaic covenant as a whole, where it was addressed to God's chosen and redeemed people to whom the law was given as a rule of life. Only when divorced from the covenant of grace does the law become a demand that damns. That was the problem with which Paul was confronted in the form of legalistic Judaism. Hence his concern to contrast Leviticus 18:5 understood as meritorious demand with the opposing principle of justification by faith apart from the works of the law. Baptist theologian Greg Nichols concurs, 

Thus the Mosaic covenant did not promote legalism. It did not teach sinners get right with God by the works of the law. It was not a republication of the pre-fall covenant of works. It called Israel as a society to gospel obedience. God built the Mosaic covenant on the foundation of the need for regeneration and justification by faith. (Covenant Theology, p. 232). 

Things get a bit more controversial from a Baptist point of view in the chapters that follow on covenant and election. The sticking point is whether the children of believers are included among God's people under the new covenant as they were under the old. Venema, upholding the WCF tradition says, 'yes', me, a 1689er says, 'no'. But there are points of agreement too.  The covenant of grace is the historical outworking of the covenant of redemption between the persons of the Trinity in eternity. There is therefore a relationship between election and the covenant of grace. Agreed. With this thought in mind Venema deals sensitively  with the issue of Election and the Salvation of Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy (Chapter 6). Baptists do not regard their children as members of the covenant people of God until they profess faith in Christ, but with the WCF the SLBC holds, "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit" (X.3 - both confessions). 

Now to points of disagreement from a Baptist perspective. Under the old covenant not every member of the people of Israel was personally elected to salvation through faith in the promises. Paul makes that clear in Romans 9:6-18.  The circle of the covenant community was  wider than the circle of the elect. In fact, among the circumcised descendants of Abraham there was only a "remnant chosen by grace" (Romans 11:6). Membership by natural descent was precisely the weakness of the old covenant, which made it ripe for abolition, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Under the new covenant belonging is not based on birth, but belief in Christ, Galatians 3:26-29. That is why the sign and seal of the new covenant is not circumcision, but baptism on profession of faith. One of the ways in which the new covenant is superior to the old is that the godly are no longer a remnant within a largely apostate covenant community, as was often the case with Israel. The church is a gathering of visible saints, more closely corresponding to the elect than was the case under the old covenant. Paedobaptism undermines this, sometimes muddying the waters quite badly. (No baptismal pun interned). 

Acts 2:38-39 isn't the clincher for Paedobaptism that Venema claims. The children of Peter's hearers "and all who are far off" would only receive forgiveness of sin and the promised Holy Spirit on repentance from sin and faith in Christ, sealed by baptism. Unless Venema is willing to allow that "all who are far off" are eligible for baptism before they come to faith in Christ, as well as the children of believers. No? Well, then. That said, Paedobaptism notwithstanding, the WCF exhibits a much richer understanding of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as signs and seals of the covenant of grace than the SLBC (compare WFC XXVII with SLBC XXVIII - scroll down the Tabular thing a bit). In Baptist circles baptism can be reduced to a rather damp way of publicly professing one's faith, rather than a means of grace. 

Next up Venema devotes three chapters to discussing Federal Vision teaching, which involves a pile of wrongheaded ideas that have been influential in American Reformed Presbyterian circles. FV holds that every church member and their children must be assumed to be elect, even though some may fall away. Infant baptism is regenerative, although again, some who were baptised as infants may turn away from the faith. Justification is merely forgiveness, with no imputation of Christ's righteousness. The works believers perform as an outworking of their faith have a role in their final justification. Venema refutes these notions with his customary thoroughness. I couldn't help thinking that freaky FV notions wouldn't have developed within a framework of Reformed Baptist theology. For me reading these chapters was a bit like eavesdropping on two people arguing. One you think is a bit wrong (Venema in his Presbyterianism), but the other you reckon is totally off the scale (the FVs). 

I wish less attention had been given to FV nonsense and more to the subject of the final chapter, Covenant and Justification in N. T. Wright's Interpretation of Romans 5:12-21. Wright's views certainly have more of a global reach than the rather domestic FV controversy. Here is Venema at his best. He states Wright's position with fairness and clarity, and then shows how his understanding falls short both in terms of exegesis and theological reasoning. Wright claims that his biblical studies approach to Romans 5:12-21 avoids importing later theological concerns into his reading of the text. But systematic theology has something to offer when it comes to setting individual passages of Scripture in the context of the whole counsel of God, and showing how various biblical doctrines fit together as an interconnected whole. As in Adam all stand condemned, so all who are in Christ are constituted righteous, justified by faith alone. The broken symmetry of the Adam/Christ relationship in Romans 5:12-21 is best understood in covenantal and forensic terms. Wright's focus on identifying who belongs to the people of God doesn't quite cut it. 

Christ and Covenant Theology is a big read that demands careful thought and attention. Baptists may not always agree with his conclusions, but will find in Venema a stimulating dialogue partner as they seek to develop a distinctively Baptistic covenant theology. The writer's emphasis on the central importance of Christ in the covenant of grace is surely welcome,

Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the origin and end of God's loving and gracious purpose to dwell in everlasting communion with his covenant people...All the ways of God find their beginning and fulfillment in and through the work of Christ, and this is most powerfully testified through the history of the covenants. (p. 434).  

* A boiled down version of this review will be published in the Banner of Truth Magazine at some point. 

But for the Grace of God by Cornelis P. Venema

But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort
by Cornelis P. Venema, Reformed Fellowship Inc., 1994, 145pp

We've all heard of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", usually referred to under the acronym TULIP, meaning Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Final Perseverance. But how many of us have actually read, let alone studied the Canons of Dort that first gave expression to the "Five Points"? In this helpful little book, Cornelis Venema sets the Synod of Dort in its historical context and gives us an insightful exposition of the Canons. He works through each point of doctrine in turn, giving a clear statement of the teaching of the Calvinistic divines and then subjecting their theology to biblical scrutiny. His aim throughout is to consider whether the Canons of Dort reflect the teaching of Scripture. The book concludes with an Appendix where the Canons of Dort are reproduced in full.

Although I would claim to be a "Five Point Calvinist", I must admit that I hadn't done an awful lot of work on the Synod of Dort. What I found here was an unexpected joy and delight. Contrary to what some might suggest, the Canons are far from being a relic of Reformed scholasticism or simply a reaction to the Arminianism of the Remonstrants. While not being a comprehensive confession of faith, they set forth the biblical teaching on the areas covered with clarity, sensitivity and care. Misunderstandings are cleared up and objections to the Calvinistic doctrine are refuted graciously yet firmly.

The theology of the Canons of Dort is in no way a hindrance to evangelism. Quite the contrary. The sacrificial death of the Son is of "infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world". (Second main point, Article 3). His death effects the salvation of all those for whom he died. On that basis the promise of the gospel that all who repent and believe will not perish, but have eternal life, "ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people" (Second main point, Article 5).

The great concern of the Synod of Dort was to insist that salvation is by the grace of our Triune Redeemer alone. The one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit planned, executed and will effectively apply the great work of salvation. To him belongs all the glory for saving lost sinners. TULIP may not ammount to the the gospel in its totality, but leave out any one point and the gospel is seriously diminished.

And they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations

In my review of Paul Hem's Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed (here), I touched on the writer's speculation that the products of God's common grace such a music and literature might be carried forward into the new creation. I suggested that there might be something in that suggestion, making reference to Revelation 21:24-26. Cornelis Venema has some interesting things to say about those verses in his excellent work on eschatology, The Promise of the Future, Banner of Truth Trust, 2000, p. 480-482. He writes,

"Every legitimate and excellent fruit of human culture will be carried into and contribute to the splendour of life in the new creation. Rather than the new creation being a radically new beginning, in which the excellent and noble fruits of humankind's fulfilment of the cultural mandate are wholly discarded - the new creation will benefit from, and be immensely enriched by, its receiving of these fruits. Far from being an empty and desolate place, the new creation will be enriched with the sanctified fruits of human culture. Nothing of the diversity of the nations and peoples, their cultural products, languages, arts, sciences, literature and technology - so far as these are good and excellent - will be lost upon life in the new creation. Life in the new creation will not be starting over, but a perfected continuation of the new humanity's stewardship of all life in the service of God.

Though some have argued that this reading of John's vision is speculative and unwarranted, the language of Revelation 21:24 can scarcely be read otherwise. The alternative - denying that life in the new creation will be enriched by the presence of these fruits of human culture - seems unlikely and problematic. Life in the crew creation will not be a repristination of all things - a going back to the way things were at the beginning. Rather, life in the new creation will be a restoration of all things - involving the removal of every sinful impurity and the retaining of all that is holy and good. Were the new creation to exclude the diversity of the nations and the glory of the kings of the earth, it would be impoverished rather than progressive. To express the point in the form of a question: is it likely that the music of Bach and Mozart, the painting of Rembrandt, the writing of Shakespeare, the discoveries of science, etc., will be altogether lost upon life in the new creation?"

It seems to me that Venema's position is exegetically warranted. He is also making a highly valuable theological point. The new creation will not be a rejection and annulment of the old but the renewal of all things by the transforming power of the risen Christ (Philippians 3:20-21). This is profoundly life affirming and is a firm denial of all Platonic views of the glory that see heaven in almost wholly spiritual terms. The future will be no less physical than the present. Our Lord's glorified humanity is the guarantee of that. Knowing all this, we understand that life in this present world is not a waste of time and energy. The best of what we achieve for the glory of God will remain. Our labours are not in vain in the Lord - 1 Corinthians 15:58.

What aspects of human culture would you like to see carried forward into the new creation? Venema mentions examples of classical music. But will we get to hear not only Chopin, but also Coldplay, not only Rachmaninoff, but also Radiohead? I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ by Cornelis P. Venema

The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspective on Paul by Cornelis P. Venema, Banner of Truth Trust, 2006, 337pp (here).

The new perspective on Paul has thrown into question the way in which Reformation theologians interpreted the writings of the apostle. It is argued that the Reformers misunderstood Paul's teaching on justification by faith and the role of the law. Although new perspective scholars do not agree on everything, they unite on the principle that Paul is best understood against the background of Second Temple Judaism. The 16th century debates over justification between the Reformers and Roman Catholicism are really besides the point.

The problem is that some new perspective advocates (who tend to be specialist New Testament scholars), do not always have a firm grasp of the Reformers' understanding of Paul. Venema writes as a systematic theologian. He is able to set his discussion of the new perspective against a broad theological backdrop. The writer begins by setting out exactly what the Reformers had to say about justification by faith. He gives us a clear picture of Reformation teaching, basing his account on the confessions of the period and examples of Reformed interpretation of Paul's writings. He concludes that the Reformers taught that justification is God's declaration that a sinner is right with him on the basis of the finished work of Christ. This righteous status is received by faith alone, apart from human effort.

New perspective scholars such as Tom Wright often point out that Paul was not combating Pelagianism in his letters. But neither were the Reformers combating a form of "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" Pelagianism in Roman Catholic doctrine. Rome teaches that we are justified by grace. But the initial justification has to be supplemented by works. The problem is semi-Pelagianism - a system of grace plus works. Pelagianism teaches that salvation may be achieved simply on the basis of works. In a helpful chapter, Can a Lonely Faith Save, Venema reflects of what the Epistle of James has to say on the subject of the relationship between faith and works in justification. Genuine faith is made manifest in good works.

Having set out the Reformation's perspective, the writer seeks to describe the work of three leading new perspective writers: E. P. Saunders, J. D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright. Venema gives a clear, concise and fair analysis of the distinctive contributions of these three representative scholars. Saunders argued that Paul was not fighting against legalistic Pelagianism in his doctrine of justification. Palestinian Judaism did not teach salvation by works. They advocated a form of "covenant nomism" that stressed that Israel was God's covenant people by gracious election. But their covenant status had to be maintained by obedience to the law. The "works of the law" that Paul complained about in Romans and Galatians were "boundary markers" like circumcision that excluded Gentiles for membership of the people of God. The issue was not salvation by works. Dunn and Wright disagree with some aspects of Saunder's reconstruction of justification and the law, but they accept that Second Temple Judaism was not a legalistic, Pelagian religion. But as Venema points out - if Saunders is right then first century Judaism was, like Roman Catholicism, semi-Pelagian. It taught that people get into the covenant by grace but stay in by works. Perhaps the Reformation understanding of Judaism as proto-Roman Catholicism was not too wide of the mark?

According to the new perspective emphasis, justification is not primarily about the sinner's status before a holy God. It concerns the question, "Who are the people of God?" Faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah is the boundary marker of the new covenant. Jewish nationalistic boasting in the works of the law was contrary to God's intention of gathering Jew and Gentile into one body in Christ. If the issue was nationalism as Saunders claims, then he may have absolved first century Jews of the charge of legalism, only to leave them saddled with the accusation of racist exclusivity.

Venema makes some shrewd observations about new perspective methodology. He agrees that Paul needs to be understood against his first century background. But he argues that historical reconstruction must not be allowed to prejudge Paul's meaning. His writings must be allowed to speak for themselves. Venema quotes Saunders' treatment of Jesus' denunciation of the legalism and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Saunders is reluctant to admit that Second Temple Judaism could have been guilty of those attitudes. Should historical reconstruction be allowed to have such a determinative role in Biblical exegesis?

The writer then goes on to reflect on the exegetical issues surrounding the "works of the law" and "the righteousness of God" in Paul's letters. Venema pays careful attention to the key Pauline texts and argues that the "works of the law" have a broader meaning than simply Jewish "boundary markers". In Romans especially, Paul was out to demonstrate that the law condemns all sinners because no-one has fulfilled the law's demands. What guilty sinners need is a saving righteousness from God apart from the works of the law.

Venema appreciates the new perspective insight that the "righteousness of God" is God's covenant faithfulness. But this does not exhaust Paul's meaning. In his covenant faithfulness God constitutes his people in a right relationship with himself by imputing to them the righteousness of Christ. A whole chapter is devoted to a defence of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The basis of our justification is the obedient life and substitutionary death of Christ. Jesus' righteousness is put to the account of all who believe in him.

The issue of justification and final judgement according to works is discussed with particular reference to the views of Tom Wright. According to him, justification has a forensic element, but the primary focus is on membership of the people of God. At the last judgement professing Christians will be assessed on the basis of the whole life of faith. Their works as well as their initial justification will form the basis of God's judgement. Venema shows that this position undermines justification by faith alone. We will be judged according to our works, but works do not augment our initial gracious justification. They simply demonstrate that the believer has a genuine, living faith.

Throughout the book, Venema writes irenically and is respectful towards those with whom he disagrees. He does not claim to have said the last word on the new perspective controversy and is aware that more, detailed work needs to be done. He is grateful for some of the gains of the new perspective. But Venema has shown that the Reformers had a better overall grasp of Paul's teaching than they are sometimes given credit for. By looking at the issues from the standpoint of systematic theology, Venema has brought an interdisciplinary approach to a subject that is often seen as the preserve of historical revisionists and New Testament scholars. Those who simply tend to write off the older perspective will benefit from Venema's assessment of the Reformation and new perspective on Paul. Everyone interested in following the controversy over Paul's doctrine of justification will benefit from this constructive engagement with new perspective teaching.