The Trinitarian Covenant in John 17 by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith
Legitimacy of Covenantal Interpretation
What Jordan's citation of these verses implied was a covenantal interpretation. He has not expounded that in detail, but careful consideration of the language in John 17:20-21 offers support for his insight and justification for the view that Reformed theology offers a distinctly Trinitarian view of the covenant. This passage offers the primary, if not the exclusive, exegetical basis for such a view. It begs for careful examination.
What would a covenantal interpretation here mean? We might say that a covenantal interpretation is simply an intensification of the ethical view. I think that it is more. By defining the love and fellowship envisioned, the covenant offers an explanation of Christian unity that goes deeper than a mere unity of purpose or love. Or, to put it in different words, the very ideas of love and unity in the Bible are not comprehensible apart from the covenant. These words belong to the covenantal sphere of language. Unity on this view would be unity in the covenant, something more than the notion of "ethical" unity and something that is possible to be held in common between God and man, unlike ontological union.
A covenantal also interpretation offers a Biblical answer to the unusual "in" expressions employed in this context. It seems best to understand our Lord here as alluding to Old Testament ideas. To begin with, the idea of God's presence with His people, first in the Garden, then in the tabernacle and the temple, is the Old Testament background for Jesus' promise that the Spirit will "dwell in" believers. In Solomon's prayer dedicating the temple, he expresses in non-theological language the precise point that God's presence with Israel was covenantal not "ontological." It was a fulfillment of the promise of the Abrahamic covenant that God would be with His people to bless them and make them a channel of blessing for the whole world (1 Ki. 8:20-21, 23-53).
Though a covenantal interpretation promises to provide insight on both interpretive problems, the original questions have not yet really been answered: If Jesus intended to express covenantal unity, why didn't He speak of the covenant? How can the covenant be an interpretive grid in a book of the Bible that seems so unconcerned with the covenantal idea that the word "covenant" does not even appear? Unless these questions can be answered, Jordan's citation of John 17:20-21 might justly be regarded as another example of Reformed scholars reading their pet covenant doctrine into a passage of Scripture when there is in fact no justification for such a reading in the context.
To answer the question of whether or not a covenantal interpretation best fits the passage, we must consider Jesus' words in context - first in the context of the whole Bible, then, in the context of John's Gospel, and, finally, in the most immediate context of the upper room discourse, for which the prayer in chapter 17 provides a conclusion.
Context of Scripture
The theme of unity among men is one that finds profound emphasis early in the Bible in passages relevant to the exegesis of John 17. The tower of Babel project was a self-conscious attempt on the part of Nimrod - a spiritual descendent of Cain - to build the city of man in opposition to the kingdom of God. The people were united in evil. They all had "one lip," an expression which includes, but also apparently means more than, one language. It also implies that they had a united "confession of faith," a covenantal unity of thought and commitment. But this was a malevolent unity of covenantal rebellion that roused God's judgment against the race.
From the time of Babel men have been disunited by divine decree. Not only their languages, but their whole way of thinking was made different, necessitating the division into separate nations. Shortly after Babel the distinction between the seventy nations in Genesis 11 was further complicated by God's calling Abraham to be the head of a priestly people. This established the distinction between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the nations (Gen. 12:1-3). Thus, the fundamental disunity of the race from the time of Babel and the necessity of a solution to the problem of man's racial alienation are basic themes of Biblical theology, themes which are vital to understanding the Abrahamic covenant.
It is also essential to note here that the Abrahamic covenant was granted by God in part as a solution to Babel, promising a future restoration of man's unity. In the climactic words of the original promise: "in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3; the same "in" language is also used in Gen. 18:18 and 28:14). Later, when the prophets foresaw the day the whole world would be blessed in the Messiah, they were expounding the Abrahamic covenant. Zephaniah even alludes specifically to Babel, when he foresees the day when that judgment shall be undone: "For then will I give to the peoples a pure lip, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one shoulder" (Zeph. 3:8; cf. Psa. 22:27-29; 67:4, 7; 72:8-11; 86:9; Isa. 2:2-3; 11:9; 19:18; 49:6; etc.).
The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, of which Jesus spoke much in His final discourse, was manifested in the spiritual gift of speaking in unknown languages. Now, whatever else this may mean, the significance of this gift in reference to Babel is clear. The curse of Babel which divided the human race into seventy estranged nations is now done away in Christ. Men still have multiple languages, but those who believe in Christ have been given one "lip," one covenantal confession of faith. They are united in their faith in and worship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The seed of Abraham who brings blessing to all the families of the earth has come!
If this is the correct Biblical theological context in terms of which Jesus' prayer for unity is to be understood, then it is not unnatural to interpret Jesus' words as covenantal expressions. If unity among men is a covenantal concern from the time of Abraham, then it is most natural that the disciples themselves, as well as modern readers of the Gospel, should interpret Jesus' words in the context of Babel, the Abrahamic promise, and the covenantal gift of the Spirit. Before we can conclude that this is the background theological motif for Jesus' words, however, we must also consider the context of the Gospel according to John, and the more immediate context of the farewell discourse, as well as the most immediate context of John 17.
Context of John's Gospel
As we mentioned above, the Gospel according to John does not use the word "covenant." Therefore, apart from the fact that every book in the Bible is covenantal in a general sense, it might seem that the covenant has no special significance in John's Gospel. It may seem even more unlikely that the idea of the covenant provides the background for our understanding Jesus' words in John 17:20-21. Closer attention to the details of John's Gospel, however discloses its emphatically covenantal character. For it is not the presence or absence of the word "covenant" which is decisive. It is, rather, the "omnipresence" of the broader theology of the covenant, an abundance of covenantal expressions, symbolism which alludes to the covenant, and the elaborate coalition of all these factors which determine our understanding of John's Gospel as "covenantal."
An adequate presentation of the material confirming the importance of the covenant in John requires a commentary on the whole Gospel, but the basic evidence may be briefly cited. First, Jordan's outline of the Gospel of John in terms of the tabernacle suggests that the covenantal presence of God with His people is one of John's central concerns.[8] Second, Meredith Kline draws attention to the fact that John in particular, even more than the other Gospels, presents Christ as the new Moses, the mediator of a new covenant.[9] Third, John's Gospel may justly be called the "Deuteronomic" Gospel, for many of its major verbal themes are imported directly from the book of Deuteronomy.[10] As Pryor points out:
It is especially noteworthy that on many occasions the injunctions to love God and to obey/keep his commands are brought together, so that we can see that love for God is always demonstrated by covenant obedience (Deut 6:5-6; 7:9; 10:12-13; 11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:6-8; Josh 22:5). This Deuteronomic pattern (and note in 30:6-8 the promise of a renewed people, the foundation of the new covenant hopes) has been taken up by Jesus in John. Not only does the Johannine corpus use 'commandment' and 'to command' with greater frequency than the rest of the New Testament, but love for Christ and obedience to his commands are brought together in a way which reminds us of the Deuteronomic covenant obligations.[11]
Fourth, throughout his Gospel John presents the special relationship between Jesus and the heavenly Father in the terms of the covenant. Nothing could be more significant than the fact that the fundamental formula of the covenant, "God with us," finds various forms of expression in John in reference to the relationship between Father and Son. In the very first verse of the prologue, John writes "and the Word was with God," using the Greek "pros" to describe the uniqueness of Jesus' covenantal intimacy with the Father. Later in the prologue, John signifies covenantal fellowship between the Father and the Son as the basis for the Son's revelation of the Father: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (1:18).
The same theme finds profound, if only infrequently direct, expression in some of the most important passages describing the relationship of the Father and the Son. Confronted with Pharisees who challenge his testimony, Jesus answers that His testimony is true, even if He bears witness of Himself. He then turns the tables on them, condemning them for judging in the flesh and adding a word about His own judgment: "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me" (8:15-16). Not only are the inherently covenantal ideas of judgment and witness - two of the most important themes in John's Gospel - here linked to the covenantal presence of the Father with the Son, but the often repeated fact of the Father's sending the Son into the world - which can only be called a covenantal commission - is also associated with God's presence with the Son. The Father sent the Son to fulfill a covenantal task and is therefore with Him to bless the Son's labor.
This point finds direct and clear expression later in the same chapter when Jesus says: "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him" (8:29; emphasis added). This places the whole idea of Jesus' commission into the world (5:23, 30, 36, 37; 6:39, 40, 44, 57; 8:16, 42; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24) as well as the works He performs (5:17, 20, 36; 10:18, 25, 32, 37, 38; 14:10, 11; 15:24) in an explicitly covenantal context, defined by a typical variation of the quintessential covenantal formula, "God with us."
Not less important than the covenantal idea of God's presence is John's emphasis on the love of the Father for the Son. The Father loves the Son before the foundation of the world (17:24) and, because of that love, He shows all things to the Son (5:20) and has given all things into the Son's hand (3:35). This love is set forth in explicitly covenantal terms, clearly alluding to the language of Deuteronomy: "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (15:9-10 cf. Dt. 7:9, 12; 10:12; 11:1 ff.; 11:13 ff.; etc.). Or again: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it againc This commandment have I received of my Father" (10:17, 18b). The Father loves the Son because the Son keeps the Father's commandments (15:9-10); the Son does His will (4:34; 5:30; 6:39-40) and fulfills the commission given to Him (17:4). Also, through covenantal obedience, the Son proves His love to the Father for all the world to see: "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (14:31).
Finally, closely associated with the previous language, there is a combination of Johannine themes which together compose a covenant. John presents Jesus as sent by the Father into the world (3:17, 34; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:432) to speak specific words (3:34; 12:49; 14:10, 24; and do a specific work (4:34; 5:17, 20, 36; 9:4; 10:25, 32, 37, 38; 14:11, 12) for which He is rewarded (6:37-39; 17:2), which is to say that John has described Jesus' mission as including all the distinctive elements of a covenant in a context that is pregnant with covenantal language.
In the light of the above evidence, partial as it is, it should be clear that a covenantal approach to the words of Jesus in John 17:20-21 is anything but unnatural. On the contrary, given the above understanding of the larger context of John's Gospel, the real questions become: Why should we avoid the term "covenant" in describing a relationship that is presented in language clearly alluding to Deuteronomy? And, why should we avoid the word covenant to describe a relationship that has all the distinctive elements of what the Bible calls a covenant? If we ought not to use the word "covenant" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, what other word should we use?
Context of the Farewell Discourse
What we find in the farewell discourse, of which the prayer in chapter 17 is the climax and conclusion, confirms our perspective on the Gospel as a whole, for this section of the Gospel includes a concentrated emphasis on the same distinctively covenantal themes. Jesus was sent into the world by the Father (13:20; 15:21; 16:5; 16:27-28; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25) to speak certain words (14:10, 24; 15:22-23; 17:8) and accomplish certain deeds (14:10, 11; 15:24; 17:4) for which He is rewarded (17:2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24). Jesus keeps the Father's commandments because He loves the Father (14:31), and by that same obedience He abides in the Father's love (15:10). Jesus is never alone because the Father is "with" Him now (16:32) even as the Father was "with" Him before the foundation of the world (17:5).
Another remarkable feature of the farewell discourse is that the relationship between Jesus and the Father is repeatedly seen as parallel to the relationship between Jesus and the disciples. In His prayer to the Father, Jesus says "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world" (17:18; cf. 20:21). He also says that the world will know that the disciples are His followers when they love one another, just as He also says that the world will know that He loves the Father when He keeps the Father's commandment (13:34-35; 14:31). Again, the disciples are to keep Jesus' commandments and so prove they love Him (14:15, 21, 23; 15:9-10), just as He has kept the Father's commandments (15:10). The parallels here are all "covenantal" in nature. In other words, the relationship of Christ and the Father is a pattern for the relationship between Christ and the disciples because they are both covenantal relationships.
An especially important passage in the farewell discourse is the famous allegory of the vine and the branches. Here Jesus employs a well-known Old Testament image of the covenant relationship between God and His people (cf. Deu. 32:32; Psa. 80:8-16; 128:3; Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1; etc.). Neither Jesus' disciples nor a Biblically educated modern reader can possibly miss the covenantal reference of this symbolic language. Furthermore, and significant for the understanding of John 17:20-21, the expressions "in me" and "in you" are clearly used to describe a covenantal relationship. The branches are "in" Christ (15:2, 4, etc.), but if they do not "abide in" Him, they will not bear fruit and, therefore, be cast away (15:2, 6). Those which do "abide" will "bear fruit" (15:2, 5) To abide "in" Christ means to remain "in" Christ's love, which means obedience to His commandments (15:9-10).
As in the larger context of the farewell discourse, so in this allegory the relationship between Christ and the Father is set forth as the pattern for the relationship between Christ and the disciples. Just as Jesus abides in the Father's love by keeping His commandments, so the disciples are to abide in Christ. This repeats what is said earlier in the farewell discourse: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. . . . Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (14:20-21, 23). Clearly, then, the farewell discourse and especially the covenantal picture of the vine and the branches provides the contextual key for understanding the unusual "in" expressions of Jesus' prayer.
Thus, in the verses that form the immediate context for Jesus' prayer, the covenantal themes found throughout the Gospel are repeated, a parallel is drawn between Jesus' relationship with the Father and His relationship to the disciples, a famous symbol of Israel's covenant relationship with God is used to describe the relationship of Jesus with the disciples, and, finally, in the symbolic language of the covenant picture, as well as in other parts of the farewell discourse, Jesus uses, with a covenantal significance, various "in" expressions like the ones in His concluding prayer. Once again, then, the question is not why we should read the passage covenantally, but how we could possibly read it any other way.
[8] James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, Ten.: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1988), pp. 266-269. Of this same idea, John W. Pryor writes, "But of all the covenantal images in John's Gospel, perhaps the most powerful is what is given in 1:14. The motif of divine presence in Israel as the sure sign of their covenant status was a central motif of the Old Testament." John W. Pryor, John: Evangelist of the Covenant People (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 158.
[9] Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, revised edition, 1975), pp. 190-95.
[10] John W. Pryor, John the Evangelist of the Covenant People, pp. 161-63.
[11] Ibid., p. 162.
Home: Purpose: Apologetics: Covenant Theology: Eschatology: Evangelism: Law and Gospel: Reformed Theology: Sacraments: Soteriology: Topical Issues: CPC Church: Downloads: Links