Your last question is a good one — and has forced me to think through some things (or at least try and think through some things). I believe, at this point in my understanding, I would say that the difference is substantial and not merely semantics. Perhaps it’s a bit like the old question, “which came first — the chicken or the egg? It may seem like the whole thing matters very little in the long run. However, it seems to me, that if one “backs things up” to the very basics — then the covenant conception comes from the story in Scripture (and not vice-versa). This is important because it sets the very foundation and authority for what follows. This gives the Bible storyline the definitive, authorative position, not the system. From that story-line flows (I agree) CT with its emphasis on Christ and “God with us.”

As to whether the struggle would be worth the effort to try and change the long-accepted terminology of CT — hmm, I don’t know. However, I do believe that when it comes to talking to non-CT folks (most the Christians I deal with), the story-line (redemptive history as unfolded in Scripture), approach is much less likely to be put in a particular “camp” (and therefore prejudiced) and more likely to be seen as a truly, viable, biblical approach to giving a framework for all Bible teaching.

For these reasons, I believe Edward’s outline is most enlightening and helpful and fundamental.

thanks for helping think through this, Mike

I found an internet connection, so I’m trying to catch up with e-mails, comments, etc.

I definitely agree that Edwards’s threefold division of history is the biblically-faithful way of structuring the story of redemption; however, I don’t think it’s an altogether different structure than that which is proposed by CT — just complementary. Perhaps emphasizing the Edwardsian suggestion as the foundation underlying the succession of covenants/administrations of the covenant would be helpful in bringing to the fore the significance of the change brought about by the inauguration of the new covenant of fulfillment in Christ — I think the emphasis on continuity between the Abrahamic and New Covenants can tend to obscure the centrality and earth-shattering signfifcance of the final establishment of the New Covenant, by the shedding of Christ’s blood, if one is not careful. Emphasizing Edwards’ division, while not denying the traditionally-accepted covenantal progression of CT (and biblical redemptive history) may prove a healthy corrective to the potential lack of appropriate emphasis.

I believe Calvin has an enlightening discussion of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants in his Institutes — but still probably not as simple and helpful as Edwards.

By the way, I’m planning on responding to your other comment about our trip by e-mail.

I’ve corresponded with you on several other articles you have written. Thought I’d show up here also.

Your summary of Edwards’ view of history seems to me to be an excellent way understanding the over-arching message of the Bible. That is, it is better than having the Covenant System as the meta-arch. This three-part storyline puts the onus squarely back on the Biblical story. And Edwards merely boils that story down to its’ three major “acts.”

This would accentuate the fact of a meta-author — God, who has an over-arching purpose for writing His book.

A meta-author assumes a meta-narrative – which would be the story of Immanuel (God with us) – God revealing His plan of redemption through Jesus Christ. This over-arching story has the three main acts: Pre-Christ, Christ, Post-Christ.

And a presupposition in understanding (hermeneutics) this God-Book would be that one has to know God (in terms of salvation) in order to truly understand the contents. True understanding of the contents presupposes believing, knowing and understanding the meta-author as well as the meta-narrative (storyline) of the Book.

Hmmm. As you can see — I’m musing as I go along here. And wondering what your thoughts are concerning all this. Please feel most free to pick apart logic (or, lack thereof) and to add anything helpful.

Mike

B’Shem Yeshua

~Bonnie