On the Covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic... New Covenant)

Unusually, a theological topic. How are we to understand Jesus in the light of the Old Testament covenants? I've been helped on this topic by Alistair McKitterick who has been teaching at Moorlands College and is now off to the London School of Theology. Obviously his understanding of this topic is better than mine, so I'm giving him fair credit for much of what follows. Having said which, he might not agree with everything I write below.

Most of us are fairly familiar with the covenants in the Bible, which are with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah and found in the New Testament. The background to these is suzerain-vassal treaties between kings and their people, or between a more important and less important king in the ancient near east. The most important of these covenants, from a NT perspective, are the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, but I will include the Mosaic covenant too:

1. Abrahamic - the promise of land and descendants (Gen 12, 15, 17). Circumcision was the sign of this covenant (for Abraham's descendants).
2. Mosaic - the promise that they would have a special relationship with Yahweh (the LORD) as his people, and be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 1-24).  The festival of Passover was a way of remembering the salvation Yahweh won for his people. Many laws were given through Moses, especially, of course, the ten commandments, but much of Exod - Deut is narrative - the story of how Yahweh redeemed a people for himself and brought them into the land he had promised to Abraham that his descendants would inherit. The whole of the Gen - Deut narrative is called the Torah, which is translated nomos 'law' in the NT. When you read 'law' think 'Torah'.
3. Davidic - the promise that one from the 'house' of David (one of his descendants) would always rule on the throne of Israel. David wanted to build a 'house' of worship for Yahweh, but Yahweh instead built a 'house' (dynasty) for David (2 Sam 7).

The thing you have to remember about the NT debate about law and covenants, according to Alistair, is that those who followed James' teaching wanted to teach that circumcision was mandatory for all believers, including gentiles (Gal 2-3). Even Peter was tempted to agree with this policy, according to Paul. These teachers wanted everyone to be children of Abraham. Paul's response was, yes, everyone, including Gentiles, are children of Abraham (or can become a child of Abraham), but only by having faith in Jesus the Messiah. It is 'in Christ' we are saved, both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1). This, according to Paul, did away with the need for Gentiles to be circumcised. 'Phew' we all say! So the promise given to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ.

Now, this is where it gets really interesting. According to Alistair, it is not the law that is fulfilled. The law, remember, is the Gen - Deut narrative called 'Torah'. This is summarised in Christ's teaching as 'Love Yahweh your God with all your heart and mind and strength; love your neighbour as yourself.' Those are the only 'laws' Christ-followers need to keep. The sabbath? No longer a law. Yes, there are good principles we learn from in the OT and want to follow for our own health, like taking time out to rest and worship the LORD, but the sabbath-keeping is no longer obligatory.  If you compare 'do not kill' with 'love your neighbour as yourself', the latter is so much more powerful. Jesus has deepened the teaching of the Torah, and the promises are fulfilled in him. Do we need Abraham, Moses and David? Yes to Abraham and David, because we are children of Abraham, and without David the term 'Messiah' would make little sense (as it means 'anointed one', and Jesus is the one who fulfils that longing for one to rule Israel forever). Perhaps no to Moses, though we take interest in that period of history, as it shows how Yahweh developed a close relationship with his people through Moses - who prefigures Christ. Also without Moses and the redemption of the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt, there would be no Liberation Theology (liberation theologians teach that economic salvation is as important as spiritual, leading to the idea of integral mission).

What about the new covenant? This implies that the OT has one covenant, called 'the old covenant', and in a way that is true - the Mosaic covenant renewed the Abrahamic. Likewise the Davidic. OT theologians who frame their theology of the OT through covenants, are therefore not being biblical (they are ignoring Jeremiah's prophecy of the 'new covenant' and the whole of the NT). There is some truth in the idea that each covenant is developed with that key figure, however, and the covenants certainly change and develop (or are 'renewed').

In all of this we must avoid replacement theology. It is not right to teach that we, Christians, have replaced Israel. Some Christians teach that Israel, in the OT, were 'the church'. That too is somewhat unhelpful.

Now, what about Noah (and Adam)? The covenants with them were with the whole of creation, including humanity, but via actual humans, namely Noah (and Adam). This allows us to discuss creation care as something established for all of us, humans, to be passionate about, whether or not we are Christians. All of us have a relationship with, and are part of, creation, whether we call it that or not (and the big bang theory certainly points to an origin and energy source for the beginning of space and time, which sounds very much like a creation event to me). Salvation is actually a restoration of a relationship begun at creation. Therefore the Bible always puts salvation in terms of restoration of that relationship between Yahweh-God and humanity. The whole narrative of the Bible, including the teaching about covenants, is part of that rescue mission Yahweh-God has been implementing since the fall described in Gen 3.