During my third and final year at (Protestant) seminary, something happened that represented a crisis for me. I was studying covenant and I heard of another theologian studying covenant, a man by the name of Professor Shepherd in Philadelphia teaching at Westminster Seminary. I heard about Shepherd because he was being accused of heresy. People were suggesting that his heresy grew out of his understanding of the covenant. So I got some documents that he had written, some articles, and I read through them. I discovered that Professor Shepherd had come across the same conclusions that my research had led me to.
In the Protestant world the idea of covenant is understood
practically as synonymous with or interchangeable with contract. When you have a covenant with God, it’s the same as having a contract. You give God your sin; He gives you Christ, and everything is a faith-deal for salvation. But the more I studied, the more I came to see that for the ancient Hebrews, and in Sacred Scripture, a covenant differs from a contract about as much as marriage differs from prostitution. In a contract you exchange property, whereas in a covenant you exchange persons. In a contract you say, “This is yours and that is mine,” but
Scripture shows how in a covenant you say, “I am yours and you are mine.” Even when God makes a covenant with us, He says, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” After studying Hebrew, I discovered that 'Am, the Hebrew word for people, literally means, kinsman, family. I will be your God and father; you will be my family, my sons and my daughters, my household. So covenants form kinship bonds which makes family with God.
I read Shepherd’s articles, and he was saying much of the same
thing: our covenant with God means sonship. I thought, “Well, yeah, this is good.” I wondered what heresy is involved in that. Then somebody told me, “Shepherd is calling into question sola fide.” What! No way. I mean, that is the Gospel. That is the simple truth of Jesus Christ. He died for sins; I believe in him. He saves me, pure and simple; it’s a done deal. Sola fide? He’s questioning that? No way.
I called him on the phone. I said, “I’ve read your stuff on
covenant; it makes lots of sense. I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusions. But why is this leading you to call into question Luther’s doctrine of sola fide?” He went on to show in this discussion that Luther’s conception of justification was very restricted and limited. It had lots of truth, but it also missed lots of truths. When I hung up the phone, I pursued this a little further and I discovered that for Luther and for practically all of Bible Christianity and Protestantism, God is a judge, and the covenant is a courtroom scene whereby all of us are guilty criminals. But since Christ took our punishment, we get his righteousness, and he gets our sins, so we get off scot-free; we’re justified. For Luther, in other words, salvation is a legal exchange, but for Paul in Romans, for Paul in Galatians, salvation is that, but it’s much more than that. It isn’t just a legal exchange because the covenant doesn’t point to a Roman courtroom so much
as to a Hebrew family room. God is not just simply a judge; God is a father, and his judgments are fatherly. Christ is not just somebody who represents an innocent victim who takes our rap, our penalty; He is the firstborn among many brethren. He is our oldest brother in the family, and he sees us as runaways, as prodigals, as rebels who are cut off from the life of God’s family. And by the new covenant Christ doesn’t just exchange in a legal sense; Christ gives us His own sonship so that we really become children of God.
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
