Two Hermeneutics: Covenant and Dispensations

[EarlyActs]

Such as?

The CT moderator here does it about Gen 1, about biology. John Gault says Gen 1 is not what happened biologically. So then do we just forget about genders too? Instead of being open to actually debate this, he issues threats for anyone who misrepresents him. Well, it might not be misrepresentation, or, if it is, how about if he says what he means a couple other ways, so we have clarity?

When I have tried this, I find that he is deeper in conventional evolution than I thought. You can name just about any evolutionary scientist, and he will take his side. You can name just about any creation scientist and he will villify them as not knowing the issues; Ph.Ds at DOW chemicals for decades, etc.

So then I asked if God interrupted nature in Genesis 1, which is where I have concluded. Like Lewis I believe there are 'natural' miracles (grapevines convert water to grape juice), and supernatural ones (at the wedding in Jn 2). There already was nature in Gen 1, though lifeless. But several things about Gen 1 have God intervening and disrupting natural process.
Biological scientists have struggled with this forever, it seems, and a Britannica summary of this says that they just 'believed' that some forms of spontaneous life out of nowhere were RNA rich or that panspermia explains the arrival of life. "Developmentalism was made to seem plausible by a kind of trick" wrote Lewis about this school of thought. (Developmentalism here means theory that life arose spontaneously, not abruptly complete and thriving like in Genesis).

But Genesis tells us it was thriving immediately when it came, like the feeding of 5000 or the fish caught a few feet from where the disciples tried first in Jn 21. There is no evolutionary doing it. The Hebrew expression is that the various spheres of life were to 'swarm with swarms' a very sudden manifestation.

But the poetic liturgy of Gen 1 is still valuable to him as truth, it is just not biological truth.

A 2nd one related to Gen 1 is the image of God. I think you will find that this is based on kings marking territory. They set out images. Mankind is that. But John G says that the liturgy of Gen 1 is covenant theology and that solves that.

I think a person should recognize that there is a progression going on, which can be seen in various places in the Bible, like Gal 4. And we should not run ahead of it. One way of doing that is not to look at a passage with an extensive form of theology, when it is actually history with bits of theology. Even when the term covenant finally shows up in early Genesis it is more of a promise about the type of retribution on the earth that would occur in the future. I can hardly draw connection between ch 1 and ch 8.

Again, as you know, one of John's recent posts is how CT can guide our reading of evolution and Genesis. I think this one line contains 3 mistakes about how to do things!

As for D'ism, it is wound up in placing so much weight of 'proof' on modern events that it has become ridiculous. If it was really aware of the historical nature of the Bible and the necessity of that, it would have no problem with Schaeffer, but instead there are intellectual barriers. These 'proofs' about prophecy have been out for some hundred years and have been changed and redone, and most of these folks have no idea what G Elliot was doing when she wrote DANIEL DERONDA, as a total renegade from evangelical belief, to kick start European Jews relocating to the ancient land. It was not evangelistic!

In both cases, I find a departure from the facts (often of a specific text) and yet there is a claim that there is a better sense of meaning than any other way.

Lewis's essay "Man Or Rabbit?" showed us that we will gladly ignore lack of factual truth if a belief 'helps' us, whereas real men do not want 'help' from a belief if it is not based on truth. As mentioned above, he had a slightly different way of putting the split-reality problem that modern people have come to accept, that Schaeffer documented so well.

 

[Josheb]

Covenant - Critiques

• Dispensationalists argue it:
  • Reinterprets OT promises
  • Diminishes ethnic Israel’s future distinctiveness

Dispensational - Critiques

• Covenant theologians argue it:
  • Divides Scripture too sharply
  • Undermines NT interpretive authority
  • Fragments redemptive history

These particular Dispensationalist critiques are a source of personal aggravation because I read/hear them a lot in debate and they have no basis in scripture. The simple fact of whole scripture is that the New Testament writers near constantly provided an explanation and meaning for what was previously written. Simply put, the newer revelations explain the older ones, and it is not Covenant Theology that asserts that extra-curricularly. God's own word practices this and asserts it as the godly practice all Christians are to practice. On every occasion when Jesus said, "You have heard it said (and then he provides an OT reference) , but I say, " (he then provides truth) ," that is an example of Jesus restoring the original meaning of God's word, not reinterpreting OT promises. The Jews mucked things up. Christians reading the OT thinking everything written therein is what should be practiced have made a huge mistake. Scripture often records human error without attaching a note stating, "that was a mistake." It was a mistake for the Jews to think their geo-political nation-state was the "nation" of promise, the nation promised Abraham. They completely missed the fact the promise was a phrase, not a word. A nation-of-promise is much different than a nation-of-ethnicity. Their mistake is understandable given 1) sin, and 2) the lack of further revelation but the mistake being understandable is not the same as the mistake being correct. The entire history is a witness to humanity's sin and the consequent foolhardiness. Religion kills. Christ resurrects and restores. Ethnic Israel has no distinctiveness, other than that which God gives it in Christ.

The New Testament explains this without reinterpreting Old Testament promises but it is nearly impossible to convince a Dispensational Premillennialist of that fact because of 1) sin, 2) the sinful practice of a loyalty to a theology over whole scripture, and 3) only God can illuminate His word. That, then, is the chief critique (criticism) from the Covenant perspective, imo.






To say, "Yes, Jesus is God but he is not NOW king on the earth" is irrational. It is based on a literal reading of the OT that is not informed by the rest of scripture or..... logic. If Jesus is God then there has never been a single second when he was not King. King of the earth on the earth over the earth. This is axiomatic. I just spent a week arguing with a DPist whose perseverative protest was Jesus is not king on the earth NOW. That is absolutely one of the stupidest claims ever asserted in Christianity. The Creator is not bound nor limited by His creation, nor the divisions between heaven and earth that we experience. This is axiomatic. The Creator God cannot not rule every creature and every inch of creation in or on which that creature lives and dies. This is axiomatic. A god who is also not always and everywhere King is not a God. This is axiomatic. It is presuppositional. It is foundational. Covenants and dispensations are irrelevant. They are built upon the foundation of God is God and there is only one God, the Creator God.

 

[Josheb]

The CT moderator here does it about Gen 1, about biology. John Gault says Gen 1 is not what happened biologically. So then do we just forget about genders too? Instead of being open to actually debate this, he issues threats for anyone who misrepresents him. Well, it might not be misrepresentation, or, if it is, how about if he says what he means a couple other ways, so we have clarity?

When I have tried this, I find that he is deeper in conventional evolution than I thought. You can name just about any evolutionary scientist, and he will take his side. You can name just about any creation scientist and he will villify them as not knowing the issues; Ph.Ds at DOW chemicals for decades, etc.

The gospel according to John Gault?

Pass

Again, as you know, one of John's recent posts is how CT can guide our reading of evolution and Genesis. I think this one line contains 3 mistakes about how to do things!

As for D'ism, it is wound up in placing so much weight of 'proof' on modern events that it has become ridiculous.

@Arial can correct me if I have this wrong but this op is about the fundamental differences in hermeneutics, not their application or practice (and definitely not about the science of evolution).

Lewis's essay "Man Or Rabbit?" showed us that we will gladly ignore lack of factual truth if a belief 'helps' us, whereas real men do not want 'help' from a belief if it is not based on truth....

Ummm... Sorta. Lewis was wrong to say other creatures have no regard for truth and it is the post-disobedient nature of humanity to both love and disdain truth. Lewis' commentary is best understood in the context of a broken humanity. Although it is doubtful Lewis ever read Van Til (he was, reportedly, urged to do so by friends), everything in "Man and Rabbit" is built on the presuppositionalism previously asserted by Van Til. Both men were covenantal and opposed to Dispensationalism...... and its hermeneutic .

 

[Josheb]

Very good set of opening posts.

Were I still a Dispensational Premillennialist, I'd have to acknowledge the correctness of how Dispensationalism has been presented and that is critically important because misrepresentations lead to straw men. Well done.

 

[EarlyActs]

The CT moderator here does it about Gen 1, about biology. John Gault says Gen 1 is not what happened biologically. So then do we just forget about genders too? Instead of being open to actually debate this, he issues threats for anyone who misrepresents him. Well, it might not be misrepresentation, or, if it is, how about if he says what he means a couple other ways, so we have clarity?

When I have tried this, I find that he is deeper in conventional evolution than I thought. You can name just about any evolutionary scientist, and he will take his side. You can name just about any creation scientist and he will villify them as not knowing the issues; Ph.Ds at DOW chemicals for decades, etc.

So then I asked if God interrupted nature in Genesis 1, which is where I have concluded. Like Lewis I believe there are 'natural' miracles (grapevines convert water to grape juice), and supernatural ones (at the wedding in Jn 2). There already was nature in Gen 1, though lifeless. But several things about Gen 1 have God intervening and disrupting natural process.
Biological scientists have struggled with this forever, it seems, and a Britannica summary of this says that they just 'believed' that some forms of spontaneous life out of nowhere were RNA rich or that panspermia explains the arrival of life. "Developmentalism was made to seem plausible by a kind of trick" wrote Lewis about this school of thought. (Developmentalism here means theory that life arose spontaneously, not abruptly complete and thriving like in Genesis).

But Genesis tells us it was thriving immediately when it came, like the feeding of 5000 or the fish caught a few feet from where the disciples tried first in Jn 21. There is no evolutionary doing it. The Hebrew expression is that the various spheres of life were to 'swarm with swarms' a very sudden manifestation.

But the poetic liturgy of Gen 1 is still valuable to him as truth, it is just not biological truth.

A 2nd one related to Gen 1 is the image of God. I think you will find that this is based on kings marking territory. They set out images. Mankind is that. But John G says that the liturgy of Gen 1 is covenant theology and that solves that.

I think a person should recognize that there is a progression going on, which can be seen in various places in the Bible, like Gal 4. And we should not run ahead of it. One way of doing that is not to look at a passage with an extensive form of theology, when it is actually history with bits of theology. Even when the term covenant finally shows up in early Genesis it is more of a promise about the type of retribution on the earth that would occur in the future. I can hardly draw connection between ch 1 and ch 8.

Again, as you know, one of John's recent posts is how CT can guide our reading of evolution and Genesis. I think this one line contains 3 mistakes about how to do things!

As for D'ism, it is wound up in placing so much weight of 'proof' on modern events that it has become ridiculous. If it was really aware of the historical nature of the Bible and the necessity of that, it would have no problem with Schaeffer, but instead there are intellectual barriers. These 'proofs' about prophecy have been out for some hundred years and have been changed and redone, and most of these folks have no idea what G Elliot was doing when she wrote DANIEL DERONDA, as a total renegade from evangelical belief, to kick start European Jews relocating to the ancient land. It was not evangelistic!

In both cases, I find a departure from the facts (often of a specific text) and yet there is a claim that there is a better sense of meaning than any other way.

Lewis's essay "Man Or Rabbit?" showed us that we will gladly ignore lack of factual truth if a belief 'helps' us, whereas real men do not want 'help' from a belief if it is not based on truth. As mentioned above, he had a slightly different way of putting the split-reality problem that modern people have come to accept, that Schaeffer documented so well.

Corr: John Bauer (2nd line)

 

[Arial]

Corr: John Bauer (2nd line)

I kind of figured you were taking advantage of my OP to shoot one across the bow at @John Bauer over a different thread and a completely different subject. Which is why it made no sense to anyone, and it does not belong here. It is also why I didn't respond to that post.

 

[John Bauer]

The gospel according to John Gault?

Pass.

He was referring to me. It was a Freudian slip (perhaps exposing how he really feels).

John Gault, the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, embodies radical individualism—autonomous reason, moral egoism, rejection of altruistic obligation, and hostility to religion, tradition, and any authority that claims a right over the individual conscience.

In other words, Gault is everything I oppose.

 

[EarlyActs]

I kind of figured you were taking advantage of my OP to shoot one across the bow at @John Bauer over a different thread and a completely different subject. Which is why it made no sense to anyone, and it does not belong here. It is also why I didn't respond to that post.

I keep an eye out for what Dr. Schaeffer was saying because it is quite toxic. I can understand if you can't get what he's saying, but there are 3 good treatments of it by him to tackle. The 'liturgical' line by John is the issue here, and if that is what "covenant" theology means, it needs to be reexamined. (It also assumes, like many moderns, that there is no written text until after the exodus). Because really, the Bible is history for quite a while without any "theology" to be "used to guide how we read Genesis." Biological facts seem to lead John to find no meaning to the text; CT is his presumed meaning even though its not there.

We should be doing history first, then theology, which is why there is the train wreck when you get to NT eschatology. You'd have to have an OT Biblical passage where a person was sorting out what was becoming of Israel in light of the failure and captivity before you could say there's a theology. It's not in Deuteronomy because the failure hadn't happened. I don't think there is until Isaiah, when there is the amazing line that the 'oaths to David had been transferred to the Servant' which is in Acts 13.

Remember, the first use of the term is really just a promise from God that a deluge will not be used to punish the earth again. Another way was at Bab-El and it is healed at Pentecost.) There's no other party involved who meets conditions, or not. There's nothing 'behind-the-scenes' about it, which is why I reject John's thread title (Using CT to read Evolution and Genesis) out-of-hand. This is no field to approach pre-loaded; it ruins everything. It is a totally unnecessary step.

I am aware of the topic of the thread; but I mentioned what I did about the modern intellectual climate because there are other hermeneutic things going on besides that friction. G Eliot's excitement to make Strauss well known (to de-historicize Jesus but still regard him as true--'reinvented' by the apostles) is maybe the first modern piece that split reality as Schaeffer is saying. And she boosted interest in a Judaic, non-Christian rendering of all prophecy, diverting it to and promoting a modern Israel manifestation. Splitting reality indeed.

Mod Hat: This post attempts to hijack the thread for the purposes of attacking another forum member and change the subject. The thread is not about Schaeffer, Eliot, John Bauer, you, or evolution.

 

[Josheb]

He was referring to me. It was a Freudian slip (perhaps exposing how he really feels).

Ya know I knew that name but I didn't connect the dots .

John Gault, the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s novel.....

 

[Arial]

. Dispensational Structure​

History is divided into distinct dispensations (varies by system):

• Innocence
• Conscience
• Human Government
• Promise
• Law
• Grace (Church Age)
• Kingdom (Millennium)

These are administrative economies, not means of salvation.

If Dispensationalism is indeed seeing the different dispensation as administrative economies and not a means of salvation, and interpreting scripture accordingly, they have at the very outset divorced the unity of the Bible as one historical account of redemption. It has set aside Gen 3:14-15 as the central interpretive narrative. It becomes, "Here is the story of Israel" and "here is the story of Christ's Church." It is Israel the dispensationalist has their eye on throughout, not Christ. The exaltation of national Israel surpasses even the exaltation of Christ. He is just the means.

 

[John Bauer]

[Dispensationalism] has set aside Genesis 3:14-15 as the central interpretive narrative. It becomes, "Here is the story of Israel" and "here is the story of Christ's church."

I love the clarity of this distinction. It is like God promises in Genesis, “There will be a Messiah, the seed of the woman who will vanquish the serpent and his seed”—but first we have this story about Israel over here. Israel becomes a strange interruption to the redemptive thread running from Eden to the cross.

 

[EarlyActs]

If Dispensationalism is indeed seeing the different dispensation as administrative economies and not a means of salvation, and interpreting scripture accordingly, they have at the very outset divorced the unity of the Bible as one historical account of redemption. It has set aside Gen 3:14-15 as the central interpretive narrative. It becomes, "Here is the story of Israel" and "here is the story of Christ's Church." It is Israel the dispensationalist has their eye on throughout, not Christ. The exaltation of national Israel surpasses even the exaltation of Christ. He is just the means.

Arial wrote:
It is Israel the dispensationalist has their eye on throughout, not Christ

Another way to fix this is to go back to Gen 1 where God is King of the place created. Man is an image of that king, like many later kings would fabricate for their worlds.

Then when Acts 2:30 comes along and freshly-taught Peter is explaining what happened, there is no surprise that Christ being King/Lord was what David actually saw (actually the enthronement event of the resurrection). The old yearning for a king like other nations was officially over.

I wonder what kingdom-period Israel thought of those psalms that declared God was king. Perhaps they were radical documents that weren't supposed to be 'out'!

And then the Rev, rather climactically, announces that the domain of this world has become that of God's and His Messiah. Obviously it is very important that this be stated when the rulers of the world were trying to break it. As far as I can tell, this is the friction from Day 1 of the church, because Ps 2 and 110 are the most referred to. It was a doctrine worth being beaten for.

Again, it is not as though the church was trying to be the civil authority of its time; they are meant to be there. But it was trying to have those authories help in the mission of that generation, which wide-spread evidence shows was meant to reach all nations because the end was at hand. Christ was the new Noah of the generation.

 

[Arial]

Another way to fix this is to go back to Gen 1 where God is King of the place created.

Yes, Covenant theology acknowledges and always bears in mind that God is King. But Dispensationalism, whether Calvinist or otherwise, forget that or consider it not relevant to the saga of Israel, is what I have encountered. Gen 3:15 is something in the background that plays no role in the saga of Israel. They have divided the two covenants as completely separate from each other. even though Heb clearly states that the coming of Christ made the OC obsolete as it was no longer needed. Now if it is obsolete, the author of Heb tells us, it is passing away.

And if it is no longer needed, it is because it has served its purpose. It was fulfilled in Christ as Scripture plainly tells us. Not partly fulfilled and won't be until what D'ism calls the millennial reign. There is no mention in Hebrews or anywhere else of a reign of Christ as physical King for a thousand years. It has to be imported into the scriptures from the careless dividing of story of redemption into dispensations in which God deals differently with people. And then interpreting everything through that lens. It makes a jerky, disjointed, redemption. It takes our eyes off Christ.

Just listen to those D'ists who get into conversations on the subject. They are obsessed with national Israel, looking there and to the world for the sign of Christ's return. And in my experience, in the conversations, can scarcely find time to think of anything else. As though all we really need in our walk with God is Matt 24 and the book of Revelation interpreted through hard, rigid literalism.

 

[Arial]

I love the clarity of this distinction. It is like God promises in Genesis, “There will be a Messiah, the seed of the woman who will vanquish the serpent and his seed”—but first we have this story about Israel over here. Israel becomes a strange interruption to the redemptive thread running from Eden to the cross.

What many, many Christians don't realize (and I was in that crowd for a shamefully long time, even though Galatians is quite clear on it) is that God made two covenantal promises with Abraham. One of the earth (law and land boundaries), and one of the spirit (all the earth and redemption from sin and death through faith). The second did not disappear while the first took place. It ran strong and true through it. The first made way for the fulfillment of the second. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David and all the way through to Joseph and Mary. That Seed. Oh, Holy night when Christ was born! It changed the world, turned it upside down. Even time was marked by it!

And even before Abrahm the Seed that would crush the serpents head was marching forward. Seth to Noah, Noah to Abraham.

How is it possible to not recognize the Bible as one covenantal story of redemption and gasp at the power and perfection? Lack of teachers who know their stuff primarily I would say, but I missed it for far too long. And maybe it is just a matter of growth.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, Covenant theology acknowledges and always bears in mind that God is King. But Dispensationalism, whether Calvinist or otherwise, forget that or consider it not relevant to the saga of Israel, is what I have encountered.

Not only that, but they also create a false dichotomy between a purported "spiritual kingdom" and a "physical kingdom," using the former to marginalize and dismiss any and all premise Christ is now King of the earth on the earth and over the earth. If Jesus is Gd then he is also everywhere and always King.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

The Lord (Jesus) is not leaving his throne until the LORD (his Father) destroys all his enemies.

...........Matt 24 and the book of Revelation interpreted through hard, rigid literalism.

I was just thinking about that this morning. Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking literally when he heard about the new birth. The Jewish leaders thought Jesus was speaking literally when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days. The woman at the well thought Jesus was speaking about literal water when he offered her thirst-quenching water. Much of the gospels can be understood as an ongoing record of Jews hearing literally and never grasping the truth. Dispensational Premillennialists do the same. It's simply one example of many ways scripture, especially the newer revelation of the New Testament is Judaized.


Christian eschatology is, by definition, not Jewish (or Judaic). Only Dispensational Premillennialism thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. The reason for that is the bad ecclesiology in which God has two peoples. That is a requirement of the Dispensational hermeneutic: Scripture is to be read while (eisegetically) keeping in mind God has two people.

• Dispensational hermeneutic: Read scripture literally and always keep in mind God has two peoples.
• Covenant hermeneutic: Read scripture as the New Testament writers presented it (read it literally where they did so and read it figuratively, allegorically, etc.) where they did so, and keep in mind God has only one people.

Huge differences

 

[EarlyActs]

Arial wrote:
It is Israel the dispensationalist has their eye on throughout, not Christ

Another way to fix this is to go back to Gen 1 where God is King of the place created. Man is an image of that king, like many later kings would fabricate for their worlds.

Then when Acts 2:30 comes along and freshly-taught Peter is explaining what happened, there is no surprise that Christ being King/Lord was what David actually saw (actually the enthronement event of the resurrection). The old yearning for a king like other nations was officially over.

I wonder what kingdom-period Israel thought of those psalms that declared God was king. Perhaps they were radical documents that weren't supposed to be 'out'!

And then the Rev, rather climactically, announces that the domain of this world has become that of God's and His Messiah. Obviously it is very important that this be stated when the rulers of the world were trying to break it. As far as I can tell, this is the friction from Day 1 of the church, because Ps 2 and 110 are the most referred to. It was a doctrine worth being beaten for.

Again, it is not as though the church was trying to be the civil authority of its time; they are meant to be there. But it was trying to have those authories help in the mission of that generation, which wide-spread evidence shows was meant to reach all nations because the end was at hand. Christ was the new Noah of the generation.

20 Psalms have several references to God as the King of the earth.

 

[EarlyActs]

What many, many Christians don't realize (and I was in that crowd for a shamefully long time, even though Galatians is quite clear on it) is that God made two covenantal promises with Abraham. One of the earth (law and land boundaries), and one of the spirit (all the earth and redemption from sin and death through faith). The second did not disappear while the first took place. It ran strong and true through it. The first made way for the fulfillment of the second. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David and all the way through to Joseph and Mary. That Seed. Oh, Holy night when Christ was born! It changed the world, turned it upside down. Even time was marked by it!

And even before Abrahm the Seed that would crush the serpents head was marching forward. Seth to Noah, Noah to Abraham.

How is it possible to not recognize the Bible as one covenantal story of redemption and gasp at the power and perfection? Lack of teachers who know their stuff primarily I would say, but I missed it for far too long. And maybe it is just a matter of growth.

The reason it is possible (not necessarily sound) is because "theology" in early Genesis is very scattered and self-serve (you build your own) and as I've said 3 times now, the first time your fav term shows it is actually a promise of a certain thing. There is not really even very much structure when you are told that God and Abraham "cut" a covenant (to ceremonially walk between the parts of the sacrificial creatures).

Do you find any place in the Abraham narrative where the text consciously says here's #1 and here's #2?

What the NT says is that Abraham's is titled a promise, Gal 3, and that the later document with Moses is Law, Gal 3. And that it was very wrong for Judaizers to bump the promise off with the Law. But this only matters if you are using the NT itself as a guide to Biblical structure.

And on the fulfillment theme, there is Joshua and then Ps 105, saying several times that the land promise is out of the way, done, completed. Yet the NT comes along later without any concern about land and announces a new completion of "all that was promised" (Acts 13, Rom 15, 2 Cor 1).

 

[EarlyActs]

Another simple thing that occurs to me is that it is some 2000 years between the opening scene and the Abraham narrative. That's a rather long time before there is really a substantial passage about a covenant. It seems there is a considerable concern just about the ethics or morals of the people of that time more than anything, resulting, after the deluge, with the demand by God for capital punishment, without the use of the term covenant.

I also just checked the weighty passage of Gal 3, the reference to a covenant is not quite on an end-to-end set up all through the Bible and before time, but rather about what happens when someone tries to make a change; the Judaizers had said Abraham's was promised to all the race-nation, rather than Christ. The result of this is that there was two covenants, one that was made up and enslaving; one that was authentic and making free.

 

[Arial]

I was just thinking about that this morning. Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking literally when he heard about the new birth. The Jewish leaders thought Jesus was speaking literally when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days. The woman at the well thought Jesus was speaking about literal water when he offered her thirst-quenching water. Much of the gospels can be understood as an ongoing record of Jews hearing literally and never grasping the truth. Dispensational Premillennialists do the same. It's simply one example of many ways scripture, especially the newer revelation of the New Testament is Judaized.

Exactly!! Dispensationalists are just as wrong and for the same reason as Israel was and is.

 

[Arial]

Another simple thing that occurs to me is that it is some 2000 years between the opening scene and the Abraham narrative. That's a rather long time before there is really a substantial passage about a covenant. It seems there is a considerable concern just about the ethics or morals of the people of that time more than anything, resulting, after the deluge, with the demand by God for capital punishment, without the use of the term covenant.

I also just checked the weighty passage of Gal 3, the reference to a covenant is not quite on an end-to-end set up all through the Bible and before time, but rather about what happens when someone tries to make a change; the Judaizers had said Abraham's was promised to all the race-nation, rather than Christ. The result of this is that there was two covenants, one that was made up and enslaving; one that was authentic and making free.

Covenant is an interpretive framework (thing the skeleton of a house being built) in CT, not a theology itself. In Scripture we see God dealing with mankind through covenant---a covenant relationship. The overarching covenant is the eternal CoR within the Godhead. What we see in Gen 3 forward on every page and in every word, is that CoR unfolding in history and how it will be consummated. And a covenant does not need to be announced as a covenant in order for it to be a covenant.

I have no idea what you mean by that last paragraph. It seems disjointed within itself.