Covenant and Federal Headship

[Timmay]

Saw this posted. Can someone help me with this? Does a covenant always require representation (that's how God seems to do it with his covenants with people).

When we say God deals with people covenantally are we really saying federally and using the wrong term?

"I believe in federal headship. So why does federal headship require covenantalism? Can God not deal with us in a federal way without dealing with us in a covenantal way?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JTB.SDG]

Covenant Theology and Federal Theology are the same thing. The word "covenant" comes from the Hebrew berith, which was translated into Greek as diatheke, which was in turn translated into Latin as Testamentum, which is where we get our English Testament. Two other ways that the same word was translated into Latin, along with Testamentum, were pactum and foedus. That Latin word foedus is where the word "federal" came from. So it's very strange to put "federal" theology and covenant theology over against each other. I don't understand the quote.

Biblically speaking, there are some differences between human covenants and divine covenants. Marriage is a covenant biblically (Mal.2:14), there is no "representation." There are several covenants throughout the OT Scriptures such as 1) treaties between nations--Joshua and the Gibeonites; 2) Laws and agreements, Jer. 4:8-18); c) business contracts, Genesis 21:22ff; commitments between friends, 1 Sam. 20:16; d) agreements between masters and servants, Gen. 31:44. . .in all of these covenants there is no "covenant representative."

But divine covenants are different. By divine covenants, we're talking about 1) the Covenant of Works, and 2) the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is made up of the seed promise in Gen.3:15, then the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ. (Sorry if I'm covering stuff you are familiar with already). In both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, there are representatives. Adam was the representative of all human posterity who would come forth from him; Christ is the covenant representative for his people. This is really, really, really important, because others have blurred the lines between covenant representatives and those they represent. One school of thought, for instance, meshes together the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, saying, basically, the requirement in both was and is the same: "covenant faithfulness." What they fail to see is that that requirement of covenant faithfulness was required OF THE COVENANT HEAD. Adam's posterity was condemned--not because they weren't "covenantally faithful", but because Adam wasn't. It's the same way in Christ. We sin every day, but we stand in grace because Jesus kept the requirement of perfect, personal, perpetual obedience in our stead.

So in short, a DIVINE biblical covenant (as defined above), yes, most assuredly always necessitates representation, whether unto condemnation (in Adam) or justification (in Christ). When we say that God deals with His people covenantally we are using the right term; you can use federally too, it's the same thing.

 

[MW]

Foedus is a compact, contract, or covenant in the sense of a pact or agreement. Federal headship is simply covenant headship.

A covenant with future generations in mind requires solidarity and representation. The fact that men are generated in successive ages makes it necessary that representatives be appointed to act for them in the historical transactions at which they cannot be personally present. E.g., If there is to be a probation of innocent man in an optimal situation it is obvious that the father of the race must stand the test for himself and his posterity. If he fell and his posterity were tested for themselves they would have to contend with the consequences of his fall and his bad example, which would not be a genuine test. He is designated "Adam," standing in the place of "mankind" because they are tested in their representative and bear the consequences accordingly.

 

[greenbaggins]

Timothy, it seems to me that, in the quote you provide, the author is trying to separate family relationships from church relationships, such that he is using "federal" in the sense of an individual family, while using the term "covenantal" to refer to the church and broader forms of representation. I think this dichotomy is not warranted by the evidence. Vern Poythress wrote a fine article on this connection, available here.