What is the essential nature of the old and new covenants as presented in Scripture? Both theological clarity and a meaningful spiritual experience demand that we clarify the issues surrounding this question. The point has been forcefully made in Ministry magazine (February 2004), and the appeal and effort made there for clarity on the subject of covenants is commendable for its timeliness and candidness. This article attempts to contribute to the ongoing clarification of the relationship between the old and new covenants.
In my view, whether we look at the old and new covenants from the perspective of change, transition, or development, the notion of causality commends itself as a good instrument to bring clarity to whatever distinctions may be at play with the covenants. The approach I adopt here is a simple one. After a brief explanation of Aristotelian causes, I will compare and contrast the scriptural material on the old and new covenants on the basis of these causes.
Aristotle and the four causes for the covenants
We do not have to agree with Aristotle to recognize the formal, analytical value of his notion of causes. Commonly, the word cause refers to an event that happens prior to an effect. For Aristotle, the word cause meant the need for an explanation. He figured that since in all processes of change entities take on a new form, we can ask certain questions about that change. Indeed, we can ask four basic questions about almost anything; (1) What is it? (2) What is it made of? (3) By what is it made? and (4) For what end is it made?
The responses to these questions correspond to Aristotle's four causes, namely (1) the formal cause, (2) the material cause, (3) the efficient cause, and (4) the final cause. It is customary to illustrate the four causes with human art as fol lows: (1) a statue (2) of marble (3) by a sculptor (4) for a decoration.
Applying the four causes to covenants to clarify their relationship, we may ask the following questions of the old and new covenants: (1) formal cause: what is it? (2) material cause: what is it made of? (3) efficient cause: by what/who is it made? (4) final cause: for what purpose is it made? Since it is generally agreed that some kind of change occurred in the movement from the old covenant to the new covenant, it is hoped that posing these questions in the light of both covenants will lead to clarity by focusing the exact loci of change and/or continuity.
1. The old and new covenants' formal cause: What is it?
Asking about the formal cause of the covenants involves us in an obvious, yet significant, tautology. The old and new covenants are covenants and may be distinguished, for example, from contracts.
Old and new covenants belong to the same genus. At this level of analysis there is no differ ence between the old and new covenants. The semantic range of berit (covenant) brings under its purview the initial promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 and its subsequent restatements to him, as well as its development in the Mosaic (Ex. 19:4-6; Deut. 26:16-19) and Davidic covenants (2 Sam. 7:16-19; cf 2 Sam. 23:5), the new covenant of Jeremiah (Jer. 31-34), and the everlasting covenants of Isaiah (Isa. 55:3) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:60).
In the New Testament, although Paul affirms the continuity of the Abrahamic promise without specifically designating it a diatheke (covenant), in Galatians 3:15, 17 he accords the promise the status of a diatheke. The significance of un derstanding the old and new covenants in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament lies in the nature of diatheke as covenant. It lies in the fact that all of them share in the same essential reality.
Old/new covenants' material cause: What are they made of?
It is generally agreed that G. E. Mendenhall's classic study of Hittite suzerainty treaties of the Bronze Age (1400- 1200 B.C.) throws a lot of light on the biblical idea of covenant. Mendenhall lists six 1 structural elements of Hittite treaty texts that, although they may not all be present in parallel form in any one place in the Old Testament, lie behind the Old Testament understanding of the covenant in a material sense.
Therefore, when we ask the question about what the covenants are made of, we are basically addressing these six basic elements of covenant.
Mendenhall identifies these elements as (1) preamble, where a suzerain identifies himself; (2) historical prologue, where the suzerain rehearses his trust worthiness and the call for future obedience; (3) stipulations of obligations of those entering into the covenant; (4) provision for the preservation of a covenant document in the temple and its periodic public reading to make people aware of these obligations; (5) invocation of witnesses; and (6) blessings and curses in the light of obedience and neglect of covenant stipulations respectively.
At this level, we begin to see continuities and discontinuities in the old and new covenants. The preamble and historical prologues speak to the element of grace that is widely recognized as present in both the old and new covenants.
Reasoning on the premise of grace for the continuing validity of the Abrahamic promise to New Testament be lievers, Thomas E. McComiskey notes that "the unity of grace throughout redemptive history is a covenanted unity. It is the promise covenant, the force of which never fails.... The unity of grace is expressed in the unfailing promise covenant. It is a continuing legal entity." 2
Stipulations in the covenants are by nature, demands, which is what makes sense of the elements of blessings or curses in covenants, depending on one's response to the demands made under the covenant. It is important to keep in mind that stipulations are an essential and integral part of covenants. Hence to speak of a covenant without stipulations is a contradiction in terms.
However, stipulations are not the basis of the covenant, while they do express the character of life under the covenant. Commenting on the new covenant, McComiskey notes: "Its mode of administration is of incomparably greater glory and grace than the mode of obedience in the old covenant, but it is a torah covenant."3
The nature of stipulations under the old and new covenants, however, reveals differences and discontinuities between the two. Here we may distinguish general policy stipulations from specific procedural stipulations. It is customary for some scholars to distinguish the following classes of laws in the Old Testament: the moral code (Ten Commandments); the book of covenant (Exod. 21 -23); the so-called priestly code (Lev. 1 -7); and the holiness code (Lev.17-26).
Given the placement of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17) in the declaration of the covenant (Ex.19), they are understood as the stipulations of the covenant relationship,4 which have continuing validity for both the old and new covenants. We may broadly characterize the moral code as policy and the rest of the laws as procedures.
Even though some aspects of the procedural laws may have come to an end with respect to specific application, the principles behind them may still be valid. This point will become clearer as we discuss the efficient cause of the covenants.
When it comes to the status of blessings under the old and new covenants, each aspect of the promise in the Abrahamic covenant can be shown, scripturally, to have eternal validity and continuity both temporally and spiritually. 5 For example, the promise of offspring to Abraham runs through Isaac to the scion (offshoot) of David, who Jeremiah saw in the fulfillment of the "righteous Branch" (Jer. 33:20, 21), and Isaiah developed in the servant concept (Isa. 41-53). Paul makes explicit Christological application of these concepts to the new covenant (Rom. 4:13-18; 9:6-8; Gal. 3:7, 23-29), and Peter (Acts 3:25, 26).
Old/new covenants' efficient cause: By what are they made?
At this point of our study, we are asking of both the old and the new covenants, what makes them do well when it comes to what they are supposed to do? What makes them tick?
Without getting ahead of ourselves to consider the final cause of covenants, we know from Mendenhall's discussion that at their root, covenants seek to promote a healthy relationship be tween a lord and his vassal. In biblical covenants we have in view God-human relations.
How did the old covenant facilitate this relation? What administrative aspects of the old covenant, if any, endure in the new covenant? How may we evaluate the relative efficacy of both covenants?
We have seen that the principal difference between the old and new covenants lies neither in the preamble and prologue (both covenants are based on grace), nor in the blessings that are promised (they both have continuing temporal and spiritual validity). The distinction between the old and new covenants with regard to their efficacy must be sought in the area of stipulations.
To promote healthy covenant life, the old covenant had as its instruments laws (both policy and procedural), priests, and sacrifices. Under the complex administration of these instruments, the spiritual and temporal health of the covenant relationship was to be pre served based on the free motivation and response of the individual in obedience. The complex administration of these instruments was the efficient cause of the old covenant.
It is of critical importance to keep in correct perspective the place and "ministry of law" in the administration of the old covenant. As Dyrness correctly observes, "the law shows the people what conduct accords with its place as God's particular possession. The giving of the law initially with the covenant is a revelation before it is an instruction.... Israel does not keep the law in order to become God's people, but because they already are." 6
The old covenant, however, has given way to the new. It is a better covenant (Heb. 8:6); it is new, making the old obsolete (Heb. 8:13).
But what is new? Does the newness consist in doing away with law per se? If so, then it ceases to be a biblical covenant. Does the newness consist in the abrogation of the moral law, the Ten Commandments? Certainly not (Rom. 7:12,14).
Does the newness consist in the annulment of procedural laws? Yes, such as ritual and levirate marriage laws, but definitely not the aspects of those laws, such as dietary laws, that in principle are consistent with the preservation of a healthy spiritual and temporal covenantal relation between Cod and human (final cause).
So what is the efficient cause of the new covenant in promoting a newer, better, and ultimate temporal and spiritual covenantal health between Cod and the human being? What is new and better and ultimate about the new covenant is the new provision for the obedience of God's people.
"The newness manifests itself in the perfect realization of Cod's original plan;" 7 that is, the obedience that preserves the covenant relation. In this connection, it is important to keep in mind that the new covenant was given against the background of the peoples' failure to obey under the old covenant (Jer. 31:32-33).
But how is the new provision for obedience administered? Again, McComiskey is helpful: "The administration of obedience is effected by the placing of the law within the heart and by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit."8 The role of the Spirit in the heart is the essential efficient cause of the new covenant. The Spirit now gives the enablement necessary for obedience; He internalizes, universalizes and immediately mediates the knowledge and obedience of God (Jer. 31:33, 34).
First Peter 1:2 is instructive. Peter writes concerning believers that they are "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood." The same point receives pivotal emphasis in Paul's theology (Rom. 8:1 -4 (RSV); 2 Cor. 3:4-18).
Old/new covenants' final cause: For what purpose are they made?
In this final stage in our analysis we wish to understand why God extends blessings to humans through His grace, and within the framework of stipulations. We are looking for the underlying reason for everything we have discussed so far.
Is there any difference on this point between the old and new covenants? It is significant that on this issue both covenants share the same goal, namely, God's express desire to have an intimate relationship with humans. This goal is recognized as the heart and soul of the covenant.9
Earlier the promise was that God would be a God to Abraham's offspring (Gen. 1 7:7, 8; Exod. 29:45), but in other occurrences the element you will be My people\s added (Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28). The significance of the commonaljty of the final cause for both covenants underlines the point made earlier about the eternal and universal nature of biblical covenants.
Conclusion
Our analysis of the old and new covenants from the perspective of Aristotle's causes reveals the following: First, both covenants are more similar than usually thought. Second, the critical difference between them is not fundamentally in their juridical demands; rather, the difference is in the administration of essentially similar demands under the aegis of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant.
Finally, this analysis helps us to see the role of stipulations as subservient to the overriding goal of covenants without denying their validity.
1 See William Dyrness, Theme* in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, I InterVarsity Press, 1979), 114,115
2 Thomas I: McCormskey, The Covenants of Promise A Theology of the Old TKtament Covenant* (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1985), 141, 142.
3 Ibid. 165
4 Dyrness, 131
5 McComiskey, 15-93.
6 Dyrness, 130
7 McComiskey, 168
8 Ibid., 163.
9 Ibid., 57
