Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 180:717 (Jan 2023)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Matthew S. DeMoss

BSac 180:717 (January-March 2023) p. 93

Book Reviews

By The Faculty And Staff Of Dallas Theological Seminary

Matthew S. DeMoss

Editor

Covenant: The Framework of God’s Grand Plan of Redemption. By Daniel I. Block. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021. xxiii + 680 pp. $54.99.

After fifty years spent in deep study of the Scriptures, Block has come forward with his personal manifesto of its structural underpinnings from beginning to end. He is convinced that “‘covenance’ represents the heart of all biblical revelation, and the ‘covenants’ themselves provide the framework for that revelation” (1). His exposition of the idea is well worth the read. At times creative and often insightful, he presents a challenge to some dearly beloved positions in evangelicalism. Many evangelicals have traditionally conceptualized God’s covenants as either (a) unconditional/irrevocable or (b) conditional/revocable. In clear terms, Block has rejected these options as a false dichotomy, and in their place he has mapped out something of a “both/and” solution. In place of the traditional outlook, his position is that the biblical covenants “all exhibit signs of both irrevocability and contingency” (2). Undecided readers will be positioned to determine for themselves whether Block presents a superior alternative.

We have all heard the maxim that “a text without a context is just a pretext” (or something to that effect). If Block is right, part of the solution must be in the Old Testament context. In addition to a close reading of the biblical text (clearly the primary source that Block has drawn from), he has also appealed to recent findings in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies to supplement his case. In relatively recent years, works like Context of Scripture, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., and Gary Beckman’s Hittite Diplomatic Texts provide evidence that ANE grant treaties may not have been as rigidly unconditional as previously believed. While new access to ancient documents does not necessarily settle the debate, it appears to have shed light on the fact that absolute unconditionality within any ANE suzerain-vassal arrangement would have been more exceptional than was understood by a previous generation of evangelical scholars. However, this reality may well raise as many questions as it answers. Given that ANE diplomatic texts lack true unconditionality, is it realistic to think they ever reflect true irrevocability? If not, then Block’s argument is still at least partially in support of viewing the biblical covenants as exceptional in their context on the grounds of their irrevocability.

Block, of course, is not the only one asking these kinds of questions. In ...