Covenant

Theology
A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study
of God's Covenants

by J. Ligon Duncan, III

Table of Contents

Introduction to Covenant Theology

History of Covenant Theology - Overview of Works, Redemption, Grace

The Covenant of Works (Creation) - Blessings, Obligations, Penalties

Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace

The Broken Covenant of Works Brought Death into the World

The Covenant of Grace Stands in Bold Contrast to the Broken Covenant

of Works

The Parallels Between the Broken Covenant of Works and the Covenant
of Grace

The Law, the Covenant of Works, and Grace

Grace Reigns in Righteousness

Covenant of Preservation (Noah and Abram)

Abrahamic Covenant (Covenant Signs and Implications)

The Reformed Doctrine of Baptism & New Testament Practice

The Covenant of Grace with Abraham, Fulfilled

The Call of God

Famine in the Land

The Mosaic Covenant

The Blood of the Covenant

Dispensationalism - A Reformed Evaluation

The Davidic Covenant

OT Prophecies of the New Covenant / The Holy Spirit in the OT & NT

Covenant in the Synoptics, Acts and Pauline Writings

Covenant in Hebrews / The Supper of the New Covenant

Introduction to Covenant Theology

The study of Covenant Theology is a topic vital to pastoral ministry and,
frankly, to Christian ministry of any kind. And so I am convinced that the
time that you put into your study will be well spent. It will pay not only
you dividends but the people of God whom you serve dividends for years
to come. Let's hear God's word in Hebrews chapter 6, we'll begin in verse
9.

"But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and

things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. For
God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have
shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to
the saints. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so
as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, that you may not be
sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit
the promises. For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He
could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL
SURELY BLESS YOU, AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." And
thus, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by
one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as
confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring
even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of
His purpose, interposed with an oath, in order that by two unchangeable
things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong
encouragement, we who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope set
before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure
and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has
entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek."

Thus ends this reading of God's holy and inspired Word, may He add His
blessing to it. Let's look to Him in prayer.

"Our Lord and our God, we thank You for these words. Words of
Scripture, words inspired by the Holy Spirit. Words about the covenant
designed to strengthen us in the faith and comfort us in the everlasting
hope. As we study the truths of the covenant, we pray that not only would
our minds be enlightened, but that our whole heart, the very essence and
inner aspect of our being would be captivated, mind, will, affections. That
our desires would be moved as we see the glories of Your covenant
displayed in Your Word. We ask that You would help us today even as we
begin this study. May we honor You in our work. For Your glory and our
good, we ask it in Jesus' name. Amen."

I want to note just a couple of things about this passage. This passage
puts something very important in perspective about the covenant. The
whole function of the covenant, and especially of the covenant signs, is to
assure us of God's favor. This passage talks about God confirming His
promise by the covenant, a mechanism that He put in place in order to
assure us of His purposes in salvation towards us. Every one of us as
believers, from time to time, struggles with doubt. And when we struggle
with doubt, usually corresponding to that, there is a struggle with
assurance. Isn't it comforting for you to know that one of the things that
God has spent the most time on in His inspired Word from the very
beginning, from the book of Genesis, is the assurance of believers. When
Abraham was wavering in his faith in Genesis 15 and in Genesis 17, what
did God come to his rescue with? The signs of the covenant. When David
was wavering in his faith in II Samuel 7, what did God do? He established
His covenant with David, establishing David's line on the throne. When
we waver in our faith, about the purposes of God towards us, what has
God given us to be strengthened in assurance? The signs of the covenant:
Communion, The Lord's Supper, the covenant meal, and Baptism, which
we see administered from time after time, reminding us of God's
initiative for us. So the covenant constantly functions to assure believers
of God's steadfast purposes toward them. Even though we are fickle, He is
not, and the covenant speaks to that issue. He is a God who binds
Himself. He comes towards us and He says, "I will do this. And I not only
promise it to you, I bind Myself by oath, and since there is no one greater
than me, I bind myself by my own oath, to perform the promises that I
have made to you." Don't forget that that is what the Covenant is about,
very close to its heart, the assurance of God's people of God's purposes
towards them. Now, I want to read to you a quote and I want you to guess
who said this:

"The doctrine of the Covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has
been said that he who well understands the distinction between the
Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is a master of divinity. I
am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the
doctrines of Scriptures are based upon fundamental errors with regard to
the covenants of law and the covenants of grace. May God grant us now
the power to instruct and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital
subject."

That wasn't a Presbyterian. That wasn't even an Anglican. That was a

Baptist. His name was C.H. Spurgeon. And he knew that Covenant
Theology is at the heart of the Gospel ministry because Covenant
Theology is the Gospel. And if you don't understand Covenant Theology,
you are not ready to convey the Gospel in all of its glory and in all of it
fullness to the people of God and to those outside of the covenant in order
to draw them in to the experience of the fullness of the Covenant mercies.
So what we are talking about is not something peripheral. We are not
talking about something that simply divides Christians, like
Dispensationalists or Baptists and Presbyterians. We are talking about
something that strikes at the very heart of our understanding of the
person and work of Christ, of the Gospel of salvation, of redemptive
history, of the relationship between the Old and the New Testament.
Covenant Theology is that central.

Goals and objectives.

Now before we look at the syllabus of the course, I want to tell you my
goals and objectives here. First of all, it will be my goal to communicate
useful information and knowledge to you, about the biblical and
historical and theological teaching about the covenant. Primarily, of
course, this information will consist of the knowledge of God revealed in
the Scriptures, but it will also properly involve our knowledge of God's
creation, including ourselves, our time, the world, our own flock. And of
course the major source of this knowledge will be the special revelation of
Scripture. So I want you to come armed with your Scriptures, your
Hebrew and your Greek, because we will be delving into God's Word and
plumbing its depths.

Secondly, my goal is to explain and encourage you towards a right use of

this knowledge. I don't simply want you to have understanding; I don't
want you simply to stockpile information. I am aiming for something
more than a cognitive grasp of this truth. I want you to know how to use
this truth in your own life and in the lives of others. The sort of
knowledge of God which can be taught in a theology class is never an end
in itself. It is always a means to a deeper and higher end. And that end is,
of course, the glory of God and union with Him. And that flows from
communion with God. We learn about God in order that we might know
Him. And by knowing Him, I mean entering into a full relationship and
fellowship with Him. If I could repeat this in another way, saving
knowledge of God is covenant knowledge, and covenant knowledge is
personal knowledge. It is not just knowledge about God; it is knowledge
of God Himself. Covenant knowledge is the knowledge of communion
and fellowship with the living God.

Propositional knowledge is knowledge that we can express in sentences

speaking about God. Propositional knowledge is an essential element of
that personal saving knowledge. There are a lot of people today who
would like to tell you that you cannot express truth in words. Rubbish.
That is a truth expressed in words. It is an untruth I might add, but it is a
proposition expressed in words. You cannot talk about truth apart from
the Word. The idea of truth being nonpropositional is one of the biggest
and most ridiculous statements being made today. Propositional
knowledge is essential for us to have a personal and saving knowledge of
God and hence, it is imperative in the spiritual walk of all Christians.

But that is not the only element of saving knowledge. There are plenty of
people who are capable of cognitively grasping the teachings of the
covenant who are as far away from the experience of the true knowledge
of God as they could possibly be. In fact, one could argue that the greater
grasp that you have cognitively of the truth, paralleled with a lack of true
experience, actually puts you farther from God, rather than nearer,
because you are more apt to be blinded to your lack of personal
relationship with God, because you have all this cognitive information
about Him. So knowledge is a dangerous thing. And we pursue it wisely
only when we are pursuing our cognitive knowledge and our systematic
studies with a view to a personal knowledge of the Lord.

Thirdly, one of the other goals that I want to pursue is the development of
your analytical skills. You need to develop your ability of discernment to
the point that you are capable of synthesizing knowledge and capable of
critical thought and possessed of good judgment so that you can pick up a
book on the covenants and you can rapidly come to know where that
person is coming from theologically, where the gaps are in their teaching,
or where the strengths are in their teaching. And most of you are going to
become a walking reference source for the people that you serve, even if
you are training for something other than the Gospel ministry. If you
have a special training from a seminary and you are working in Christian
ministry, you may be assured that people will view you as a person who
has special expertise. And hence, they will use you as a resource to guide
them in their own growth. And I want to give you the kind of
discernment, or help you to obtain the kind of discernment and analytical
abilities, that you need for that.

Fourth, it is a goal of mine to inspire you to learn and to obey and to

worship, and if it is applicable to you, to pastor. We should be thirsty for
the knowledge of the Word of God and for the knowledge of His world,
including God's people in their context. And not all of us are going to be
equally interested in the same things, but each of us should be hungry for
commanding knowledge of something. We must not only be hungry to
put this knowledge to work in the service of our studies, but we must be
hungry to put this knowledge to work in the service of our own growth in
obedience. Now there are a lot of folks who are very practically oriented
and they are very impatient about doing the hard work of thinking
through and getting things right. I mean, they just want to get on with the
Christian living. And there is something admirable about that at a certain
level, but it can lead to real problems. Especially if you have left some
very essential work undone in the area of the understanding of God's
Word. Zeal without knowledge is not more spiritual. It is less spiritual.
Zeal without knowledge is in fact prideful, because it is saying, "I don't
need that knowledge that God took a lot of time to sit down in His Word.
I am just going to live the Christian life." And God didn't design us to
work that way. He designed us to understand His Word and to operate
from the base of His Word in Christian living. So we must burn in our
hearts to worship the Lord even in our pursuit of knowledge. To glorify
Him as we pursue knowledge that we might learn and obey.

Let me also warn you of the sober work to which we are called as we go
into the Christian ministry and the danger that accompanies that for our
own souls, should we be careless in that calling. We are called to be
stewards of the mysteries of God, and one day, we will stand before the
Lord and we will give an account of how we handled those mysteries.
Spiritual self-examination and self-criticism is a very important part of
that. Seminary was a rich time of experience for me, but it was also a hard
time, because I had to take a good hard look at me. And it was not very
often a pretty picture. And as we study the Word, there are going to be
some things here, and I mean this for your encouragement, that if you
take them and you look at them and you use them in the process of self-
examination, they may be very discouraging. Don't be ultimately
discouraged by that struggle. That struggle ought to be there. And we are
not here simply to fill our notebooks. We are here to see our own hearts
transformed. We are here to grow in grace. We need to be open to rebuke
from the Word and correction from the Word. That is absolutely essential
if we are going to avoid the pitfalls of Christian ministry.

One last thing: it is my goal to encourage a warm, full, natural, practical

piety in godliness in our study. That godliness ought to be characterized
by a reverence to God and a love of neighbor and a seriousness of purpose
in your calling and a determination to holiness. My desire is that you
would be God-centered in your thoughts and God-fearing in your hearts
and God honoring in your lives. So I say that upfront, because I want you
to know what I am trying to do. I am not simply trying to make you these
creatures with really big heads and tiny little hearts and tiny little legs
and hands. I hope that the truth set forth in our study will be something
that will impact you in every aspect of your character in spiritual growth,
for yourself and for the sake of the Kingdom. Now let's look at the
syllabus together.

The Syllabus: Resources and References.

In your syllabus, you will see that this is Covenant Theology and we are
going to be looking at Covenant Theology from an exegetical and a
historical perspective. We will be doing Scripture exegesis. As you see the
description of the course and the course objectives, we will be referring to
the following required texts.

Required Texts

Standard Track [For students who desire a basic grasp of Covenant

Theology.]

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [211-218; 262-301]

Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists
O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants
 Syllabus Articles: Donald Macleod Covenant Theology in DSCH&T,
214-218
Donald Macleod, Covenant: 2 in Banner of Truth [BoT] 141:22-28
Donald Macleod, Federal Theology—An Oppressive Legalism? in
BoT 125:21-28
Donald Macleod, The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace in BoT
64:16-22
Donald Macleod, Qualifications for Communion in BoT 65:14-20
Donald Macleod, The Real Presence in BoT 66:13-16
The Westminster Confession of Faith 7: Of God's Covenant with Man
Larger Catechism Questions 20-22,30-36
Shorter Catechism Questions 12,16, & 20

Advanced Track [For students who have already read Vos, Biblical
Theology and Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, and who are well-
grounded in Covenant Theology. ThM students are required to master the
Advanced Track material, as well as the Standard.]

Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture

John L. Girardeau, The Federal Theology
O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants‡
Syllabus Articles: Donald Macleod, Covenant Theology in DSCH&T,
214-218
Donald Macleod, Covenant: 2 in Banner of Truth [BoT] 141:22-28
Donald Macleod, Federal Theology -- An Oppressive Legalism? in
BoT 125:21-28
Donald Macleod, The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace in BoT
64:16-22
Donald Macleod, Qualifications for Communion in BoT 65:14
Donald Macleod, The Real Presence in BoT 66:13-16
Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics [281-319; 371-409]
Westminster Confession of Faith 7: Of God's Covenant with Man
Larger Catechism Questions 20-22,30-36
Shorter Catechism Questions 12,16, & 20

Recommended Books
Every Reformed minister should be a master of the federal theology,
historically and theologically. Though the following works are by older
divines, and are hence written in a less accessible style, they are a
veritable gold mine for the pastor and Bible student alike. Each will
provide interesting historical and theological discussions of covenant
theology, and will prove to be rich resources for preaching the covenants.

1. Anonymous (E.F.), The Marrow of Modern Divinity [with Thomas

Boston's notes]
The Marrow is a thorough-going expression of federal theology, not
only valuable for its historical significance but for its insights for
preaching and applying the covenants. Boston's notes make it even
more worthwhile.

2. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace, Collected

Writings, Vol. 8
A representative treatment of the subject by the famous "Marrow
Man".

3. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works, Collected

Writings, Vol. 11
Boston''s exposition of the pre-fall relations between God and Adam
place him squarely in the tradition of Reformed federal theology. His
understanding of the theological implications of the covenant of
works is evident throughout, and his searching (and moving)
pastoral applications are those of both a seasoned shepherd and an
astute theologian.

4. James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification

Buchanan's established study of justification reveals the necessity of
the covenantal framework for a proper understanding of this
cardinal doctrine of the Reformation.

5. Hugh Martin, The Atonement

Another theological treasure from a Free Church of Scotland
minister, this work relates the covenant theology to the Biblical
doctrine of the atonement, and (implicitly) responds to various
contemporary (nineteenth-century) errors on the subject.

6. Herman Witsius, An Economy of the Covenants Between God and

Man
Recently republished with a lengthy commendation by J.I. Packer,
this is a exemplary presentation of continental covenant theology.

The following works are by twentieth-century scholars (save for

Fairbairn, who is included on merit) who have ably carried the
Reformed tradition of covenant theology into a new era. Some of the
volumes and articles are historical in nature. Others are exegetical or
theological. They represent a quality sampling of the best Reformed,
conservative scholarship on the covenants available today. The
pastor and diligent layman will find here treasures both old and new.

1. O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants

The best book-length, conservative, scholarly, exegetical treatment of
covenant theology to appear in the past hundred years. Robertson
utilizes the insights of G.E. Mendenhall and Meredith Kline, and
steers a middle course between John Murray's and Meredith Kline's
divergent views on the unilateral/bilateral nature of the divine
covenants.

2. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology

The standard conservative treatment of biblical theology ("the study
of special revelation from the standpoint of the history of
redemption"). Not easy reading, but rewarding nevertheless.

3. Geerhardus Vos, "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed

Theology" in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation
A good historical overview of the history of the doctrine of the
covenants in the Reformed tradition (it is nicely complemented by
Louis Berkhof's helpful sketch in his Systematic Theology 211-213,
265). This article is not the last word on the subject but a good start.

4. Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture (19th century)

Classical covenantal exposition of the subject of biblical typology by a
great nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian Old Testament
scholar.

5. Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy (19th century)

Fairbairn again brings his formidable powers to bear on the subject
of the proper method of interpretation of prophecy. This book (along
with his other great works Typology, Hermeneutics Manual, and The
Revelation of Law in Scripture) are sturdy treatments of themes
which have been neglected or mishandled in our own time.

6. Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned

In this book, as in his Treaty of the Great King, Kline draws on the
twentieth-century discoveries regarding Near-Eastern treaty forms
to elucidate the biblical doctrine of the sacraments. Kline is helpful
and innovative, but sometimes eccentric.

7. John Murray, The Covenant of Grace

This seminal pamphlet by John Murray provides a good introduction
to covenantal thought for the beginner. The more advanced student
will pick up quickly on Murray's stress on the unilateral nature of the
divine covenants (he is following Vos).

8. John Murray, "Covenant Theology" in Collected Writings, vol. 4

Another useful historical introduction to Covenant Theology, though
Murray's own reticence about the covenant of works does show
through at points.

9. Donald Macleod, "Covenant: 1" in BoT 139:19-22; "Covenant: 2" in

BoT 141:22-28; "Federal Theology—An Oppressive Legalism?" in
BoT 125:21-28; and "Covenant Theology," in Dictionary of Scottish
Church History and Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 214-218.
In these articles, Macleod shows himself to be an able twentieth-
century expositor and defender of the traditional federal theology of
the Westminster standards. In the later two articles, he specifically
responds to the standard "new" (neo-orthodox) criticisms of
covenant theology.

10. John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought

The best available historical-theological survey of the federal
theology of the Puritans. It successfully avoids the "Calvin versus the
Puritans" mythology and provides a helpful review of current (and
errant) theories on the development of covenant theology.
 11. Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation
A collection of the writings (not all related to the covenant idea) by
one of the most distinguished recent propopents of covenant
theology. Vos's evident exegetical powers combined with his
historical-theological competence (traits not often seen in tandem in
Biblical studies specialists today) make his works quite valuable and
formidable enough to still demand a reckoning with. He was a major
influence on John Murray.

In addition to the above-recommend texts, the following books provide

interesting historical and theological discussions of the covenants and
covenant theology:

O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church

A study of the biblical doctrine of the church in the OT and NT from
a covenantal perspective, designed to respond to old-style
dispensational errors (especially the "church as the 'great
parenthesis'" doctrine).

C. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism

An informative historical account of the origins of old-style
dispensationalism, as well as a critique (especially with regard to
John Nelson Darby.

C.A. Blaising & D.L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism* [* written

from a Dispensationalist perspective.]
A presentation of a new form of dispensationalism, and a
comparison of it with what it calls 'classical' and 'revised' forms of
dispensationalism. Blaising and Bock define these three forms of
dispensationalism with reference to the "two purposes of God/two
peoples of God theory." Classical dispensationalism, then, holds to
this theory, revised dispensationalism significantly modifies this
theory, and progressive dispensationalism jettisons this distinction
altogether. An important book for any evangelical who wants to
intelligently dialogue with modern day dispensationalists of
whatever ilk.

John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

 A controversial polemical work critiquing dispensationalism. It is a
scaled-down version of a massive treatment that Gerstner had been
working on for years. It could still use some editing, evidences some
theological quirks, and was poorly received in the dispensational
community (surprise, surprise!) but nevertheless contains a number
of insightful points of critique.

John L. Mackay, The Covenants of the Bible

A new work produced by the Professor of OT at the Free Church of
Scotland College in Edinburgh. Mackay's lecture at the Banner of
Truth Conference on Covenant Theology is probably the best brief
introduction, overview and analysis of covenant theology available
on tape.

O. Palmer Robertson, Covenants: God's way with his people

This is the "Sunday School version" of Christ of the Covenants
produced for Great Commissions Publications. It has some material
not found in Christ of the Covenants and is easily understandable.

C.C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today* [* indicates a book written

from a Dispensationalist perspective.]
Ryrie's attempt to respond to the criticisms of dispensationalism
which have been leveled by evangelical covenant theologians.

David Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology

A former-Th.M thesis (St Andrews) and one of the better historical
treatments of the origins of covenant theology. Nevertheless, there
are gaps in this treatment and Weir himself is sometimes too reliant
on the revisionist Torrance historiography of covenant theology.

If you feel like, "Well, I have already mastered Robertson, Christ of the
Covenants, and I have read the section on the Covenants in Berkhof's
Systematic Theology, and I have a good grasp of it and I think I could
articulate an outline of Covenant Theology. I know that I am a Covenant
Theologian and I disagree with Dispensationalists at this point and I have
really wanted to be challenged by some of the historical material that I
haven't read." Well then, the advanced track is for you. Perhaps you feel
like you are coming into Covenant Theology, as I came into Covenant
Theology in seminary, not exactly quite knowing what it was. I was
interested in the guy who was going to teach it, his name was O. Palmer
Robertson, but a little bit suspicious. I wasn't sure what this Covenant
Theology was, and it took him three days, and he had me hook, line and
sinker. But I needed to start from the bottom.

For the advanced track, Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture. Robertson once

said, "Sell all that you have and by Fairbairn." Fairbairn's works are
invaluable, Interpretation of Prophecy, Typology of Scripture, Revelation
of Law in Scripture, Pastoral Theology, Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles. Anything that you can get your hands on by Fairbairn, you ought
to buy and have in your library. Also Girardeau's Federal Theology, a little
paper that he gave on the subject of Covenant Theology.

Walking through the articles in the syllabus, let me tell you just a little bit
about them. The first article in the syllabus is Macleod's essay from the
Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology on Covenant
Theology. It is the best single thing in print giving a theological and
historical overview of Covenant Theology, period, and that is why I ask
you to read it. Then, his articles, all of which are drawn from the Banner
of Truth, are excellent for a variety of reasons. First of all, they are
exegetically confident. Second of all, he has a commanding grasp of
Historical Theology. Thirdly, Macleod is constantly interacting with
Barthian theology. And you need to understand that Barth and his
successors within the Reformed and Protestant mainstream community
have been the loudest critics of traditional orthodox Covenant Theology,
period. Often times, those of us that come from an evangelical
background, and have grown up in a general evangelical or fundamental
setting, are more aware of the battles between Dispensationalists and
Covenant Theologians. That is, in a sense, a popgun fight at the pool,
compared to the argument which has been going on between the
Barthians and traditional Covenant Theologians. In Church Dogmatics,
Barth has a ten-page footnote, small print, interacting with seventeenth
century Covenant Theology, critiquing Witsius and several other
seventeenth century men who worked on Covenant Theology. And Barth
knew those men and appreciated their writings to a certain extent, but he
hated certain aspects of their theology and his followers have ever since
been doing their dead level best to try and scuttle traditional Covenant
Theology.

And one reason why Macleod is so helpful is that he writes in the

backyard of Barth's biggest bulldogs on this question, T.F. Torrance and
J.B. Torrance. These two men have devoted their lives to trying to destroy
Covenant Theology and so Macleod has a sensitivity to the attacks that
have come against Covenant Theology and so does an exposition of it that
is very, very helpful.

Now one last thing in your syllabus. You will see immediately after the
last Macleod article a large print version of the section on the Covenants
of Works and the Covenants of Grace from Heinrich Heppe's Reformed
Dogmatics. This is sort of a compendium, statements about the
covenants, from some of the historic Protestant scholastic theologians,
and it is very rich and we will be referring to it. So that is the material in
your syllabus.

Why study Covenant Theology?

I want to start off with the question of, "Why study Covenant Theology?"
Why study Covenant Theology? I want to give you several answers to that
question.
The first answer to that question is this: Because biblically and
theologically speaking, the covenant is the bridge between anthropology
and soteriology. What I mean by that is, as you study the biblical doctrine
of man and you find him fallen, the answer to the question as to "How
God gets man out of that predicament?" is found in the area of the
doctrine of the covenants. It is by a covenantal redemptive design that
God saves us. A design that begins before the foundation of the world, I
might add. And so the covenant is the bridge between your doctrine of
fallen man and your doctrine of salvation, theologically speaking.

Secondly, because the covenants structure the Scripture. Covenant

Theology is important because the covenants structure the Scriptures.
The Covenants give order to creation and redemption. They delineate the
Bible's various historical periods. Many of us are familiar with Scofield's
arrangements of dispensations. That is an entirely artificial arrangement
from the standpoint of the Scriptures themselves. But all you have to do is
turn to say, Psalm 89 or to the book of Hebrews, and know that the Bible
itself talks about the epics of Scripture in terms of covenants. So this isn't
something that men had to think up on their own. The Bible itself talks
about God's history of redemption in covenantal epics. And of course, the
covenants have even given us the titles of the Old and the New
Testaments.

Now that brings us to those words, Covenant and Testament and such.
You know that the Old Testament word for Covenant is berith. Now that
word is translated into Greek one of two ways. It can be translated into
Greek as diatheke or it can be translated into Greek as syntheke. We will
talk about the differences in those words at some point, too. And the
Greek word, diatheke, is translated into Latin in one of three ways, but
the most common translation is testamentum.

Now, berith in the Old Testament signifies a binding, mutual relationship

with mutual obligations, a binding mutual relationship with attendant
obligations. Think of the covenant relationship between Jacob and Laban.
Jacob had to do certain things. Laban had to do certain things. Laban was
a little dishonest to deal with. Jacob was a little dishonest to deal with.
The Gibeonites and the children of Israel, in Joshua 9, entered into a
covenant relationship, a binding relationship with attendant obligations.
The Gibeonites got to draw water all their lives, and the Israelites didn't
kill them. This was a binding relationship with mutual obligations.
Diatheke in Greek is often used to describe a "Last Will and Testament."
Other times, diatheke is used to describe more precisely this kind of a
binding, living, personal relationship.

Covenant or Testament?
Now this is a nice little philological study because it gives us an
opportunity to address a really fundamental difference between a
covenant and a testament. Covenants are made between the living.
Testaments are activated when someone dies. When you enter into a
covenant, a covenant is, by its very definition, something between two
people who are alive or two parties who are alive. Testaments are made
by a party who is alive, but are not effected until the death of that person.
So, remember the Greek term diatheke is rather elastic because it can
both be used to describe this binding, living relationship spoken of in the
Old Testament in the berith, but it can also be used to describe a last will
and testament.

And there, by the way, is one of the problems with the early
understanding of what a covenant was and one reason why we lost some
rich theology for a number of years in the Church. Syntheke is a Greek
term, which tends to be used to translate the idea of covenant as a treaty,
especially in terms of a political agreement. And as we have already
mentioned, covenant is used that way in the Old Testament, for instance,
in Joshua 9 and 10. In fact, some of your Bibles, some of your NIV Bibles
will translate some of the passages in the Old Testament where the word
berith is used, and they will translate it as treaty. And that is not
necessarily a bad translation of the term—although it is nice to see the
word covenant there so that you know what is behind that word, treaty.

In Latin these words were used, especially in the second, third, fourth
centuries relatively interchangeably. Pactum can be used to describe a
covenant. Foedus can be used to describe a testament. Now you can see in
each of these Latin words the roots of English words. A pact come from
pactum. From foedus comes a word that you may be aware of, federal.
That is why Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology,
spinning off the Latin root foedus. Federal Theology from that standpoint
is identical and synonymous with Covenant Theology. Testamentum is, of
course, also a Latin word which can be perfectly and naturally translated
as covenant.

Although we tend to think of Old Testament and New Testament, those

designations of the Scripture were first given in a context where the
covenantal understanding of diatheke and berith were alive and well. And
so your Scriptures bear the titles of the covenants, old and new, on the
very front pieces. We just call them testaments, but more accurately, they
are really covenants. So, why study the covenants? Because they structure
the Scriptures.

Thirdly, why study the covenants? Because they unify the Scriptures. The
covenants unify the Scriptures. The very heart of the covenant is the
Immanuel principle, "I will be your God and you will be My people." This
is the very heart of the Scriptures. We could stop today and do a survey of
that and you would see that theme of God being our God and of us being
His people runs from Genesis to Revelation, as the very essence of God's
design for us. And that principle is a covenantal principal. It pervades and
unifies the history of salvation recorded in the Bible. The book of
Hebrews, at the very end, in chapter 13, speaks of this everlasting
covenant.

Furthermore, the Old Testament covenant forms relate to New Testament

covenant realities. Let me give you an example of that. If you pick up the
Last Supper narratives in any of the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, or
Luke, and you look at Jesus' words as He is explaining the bread and the
cup, those passages are undergirded by Old Testament passages,
especially Isaiah 53, Exodus 24, especially verse 8, and Jeremiah 31.

Now two of those three Old Testament passages are explicitly covenant
passages. And the third of them, Isaiah 53, is implicitly covenantal and
we will explain how later on. But two of the three are explicitly passages
talking about the covenant. And what is Jesus claiming as He explains
His death at the Last Supper and at the inauguration of the Lord's
Supper? What He is saying is, "I am the fulfillment of these covenant
signs and forms for which we have been waiting to be fulfilled, as the
people of God, for hundreds of years, for over a millennium. So, Covenant
Theology is important to study because the covenants unify the
Scriptures.

Fourthly, Covenant Theology is important to study because of the amount

of material concerning the covenant in the Bible. The word covenant
appears around 300 times in the Bible. If you pick up a large
concordance, the references cover two pages of small print. Now, there
are words that occur more frequently than covenant, and simple numbers
of occurrence are not an argument in and of itself. But the term covenant,
when it appears, is almost always at the focal point of the passage in
which it appears. And thus, the vast repetition of the term covenant ought
to tip you off that this is something that God is very concerned that we
understand. God is a good teacher and good teachers repeat themselves
so that we get it. And He tells us things over and over and over again, and
nigh unto 300 times we hear from Him about the covenant in Scripture.
Around thirty times in the New Testament, around 280 or 290 times in
the Old Testament. These are significant numbers of references to the
covenant.

The fifth reason for studying Covenant Theology is because of the modern
development and popularity of the discipline of biblical theology. Now,
perhaps you're asking, "What is biblical theology?" Simply, it is a survey
of the whole picture. But from what perspective? Yes, redemptive history
is the key there. Biblical theology is the study of the history of redemption
from the perspective of a particular theological theme traced through the
eras of that history of redemption.

For instance, you might want to study the holiness of God, and ask the
question, "What was revealed about the holiness of God in the Patriarchal
era?" And then compare that to what was revealed about the holiness of
God in the Mosaic era. And then compare that to what was revealed about
the holiness of God in the Prophetic era. And what have you just done?
You have just done a redemptive historical study of how God unfolded
the one truth about His holiness over time. You have just done a biblical
theological study. You are paying special attention to what God revealed
during certain times. When you are studying biblical theology, you are
picking the Bible up and you are asking, "What does the progress of
redemption help me understand about this particular biblical topic?" So
it is a study of special revelation from a redemptive historical perspective.

Now that type of study has been made very popular in this century by
Geerhardus Vos, and John Murray, and Richard Gaffin, and we could
name scads of other people who have been very interested in doing that
kind of study of scriptural teaching. Even non-Reformed Christianity is
beginning to utilize that kind of tool for doing doctrinal study. And so we
need to be conversant with historic Covenant Theology, so that we will be
able to supply useful and constructive criticism to those other schools
who are now doing biblical theology, but who are doing it without the
benefit of the long history of biblical theology in the Reformed tradition.

There is a real sense in which the Reformed branch of the Reformation

did more work in this area earlier than any other branch. From Bullinger
to Zwingli to Calvin, you will see over and over study in this whole area of
redemptive history. And we need to be conversant with our Covenant
Theology and its development so that we are able to interact with these
other, diverse theological traditions that have now recognized the
significance of the covenants.

Many of you know, for instance, that dispensationalism has undergone

radical changes, and if you pick up a book today, even by professing
dispensationalists, they will tell you that there are at least three
classifications of dispensationalists now. There are classic
dispensationalists, there are modified dispensationalists, and there are
progressive dispensationalists, and all of them have been impacted by
biblical theology in the method in which they are approaching redemptive
history. Liberation Theology has picked up on the theme of Covenant
Theology and does a lot with the doctrine of the Covenants. There are
many Roman Catholic scholars who are doing work on the covenants. For
instance, the famous Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism,
Scott Hahn, is projected to be producing a volume on the covenants,
which he actually plagiarized from his professor at Gordon-Conwell,
Gordon Hugenberger. And so Gordon quickly printed his material on the
covenants so that it would be apparent to all that that this gentleman's
thesis was a plagiarized thesis.

As I said, virtually every school of biblical interpretation today has come

to appreciate the significance of the covenants in their understanding of
the distinctive message of Scripture. Just one example, the Lutheran
German scholar, Walter Eichrodt, in his theology of the Old Testaments
uses—surprise—the covenant concept as the unifying principal for his
exposition for every aspect of Old Testament thought. So even those who
are outside of what we would call an Orthodox Reformed tradition of
theology have recognized how central the covenants are to our
understanding of theology. So that is another reason why we need to
study Covenant Theology.

A sixth reason why it is a good thing to study Covenant Theology is

because there is a massive volume of material out there on the covenants.
It is staggering. The work on covenants, of course, is most prolific in the
Old Testament. But it is also quite extensive in the New Testament in
church history, especially during the Reformation, also in post
Reformation historical theology, nineteenth century historical theology
and, of course, in popular literature from the nineteenth century until
now because of the dispensational controversies. So there is a lot of
material out there, and some is incredibly bad teaching.

You need to be able to discern bad teaching. At the church we have a

committee that is looking at family life education and we are using an
excellent book, but the gentlemen who wrote the book, though he knows
a great deal about sociology, is an evangelical Christian and is explicitly
trying to come at his material from a theological base. He also comes
from a dispensational background, and it is amazing that even in the
issue, or we might say, especially in the issue of family life, how the
covenant impinges upon how you look at things. So his distinctive
eschatology and his views of the covenants come into his teaching about
family relations. It is amazing how the covenant is pervasive in every area
theologically. So it is important for us to be able to able to discern the
truth as we weed through the material on the covenants.

There is a seventh reason why we ought to study Covenant Theology and

that is because of the importance of Covenant Theology in the literature
on the history of the development of Protestant doctrine. Covenant
Theology is related directly to several hot topics. Many of you will have
heard of the famous "Calvin vs. the Calvinists" approach to Reformed
history. And that approach basically says that Calvin's theology was
different from the Calvinists, his later followers. And there have been
even two schools which have approached that question differently. One
school, dominated by Karl Barth and his successors, suggests that Calvin
is good and Calvinists are bad. They assert that Calvin did not believe
what the Calvinists teach and the Calvinists have come with all sorts of
new teachings that really distort the real genius of John Calvin's teaching.
And so they would see Calvin as good and everybody after Beza up to Karl
Barth as bad. And then they would say, "You see, Calvin and Barth, they
were on the same team and everybody else is wrong, so just throw them
out." And there is a whole market and whole industry of historical
material trying to substantiate that hopelessly flawed thesis.

Now on the other hand, Perry Miller, the famous Puritan scholar from
Harvard, was an atheist, but who loved the Puritans, and he knew very
little about John Calvin, except that he didn't like him and that he didn't
agree with predestination. By the way, that is about what most people
think of John Calvin. Perry Miller knew a lot about the Puritans and not
much about Calvin, and so as he attempted to rehabilitate the Puritans in
the 1930s. And you can imagine, in the 1930s in America, the Puritans
wouldn't have been on the top of the charts, as they are not on the top of
the charts today. They were in ill repute in academic studies, and he
devoted his life to getting people to realize the brilliance of the Puritans
and their impact on the culture. But one of the ways in which he
attempted to do that was to say that the Puritans had actually come up
with some ideas that even Calvin had not come up with.

And Miller attempted to argue that the Puritans had, in fact, attempted to
do two things to Calvin's theology. They had attempted to try and tone
down his predestinarian emphasis. How anybody who has read the
Puritans and read Calvin and can draw that conclusion is
incomprehensible, but this is what he thought. And secondly, he thought
that the Puritans had figured a way to get works back into salvation by
means, he says, of Covenant Theology. Now again, how anyone could
understand anything about Covenant Theology and make that kind of
statement, I do not know, but he did. And unfortunately many very
intelligent people for many years have repeated his myth, that the
Puritans invented Covenant Theology, and that no one had ever heard of
Covenant Theology before the Puritans came along. So this whole issue of
Covenant Theology is wrapped with some very important church
historical theological debates that have been going on.

It is also related, for instance, to the issue of the doctrine of limited

atonement. In fact, the reason that Karl Barth hated Covenant Theology
so badly was because the Covenant Theologians, as they showed the
parallel between Adam and Christ, explained that the atonement was
definite and that its intent was, in fact, to purchase salvation for God's
chosen. And of course, Barth hated that idea of saying that the atonement
was not universal, because for Barth, the incarnation was the decisive
point, and the incarnation was a universal platform because he had this
view of Christ's humanity as a universal humanity. And so he hated the
doctrine of limited atonement.
There has also recently been in connection with this, a big argument
about the doctrine of assurance in Calvin and the Puritans. And if you
have done any reading in the area of historical theology of Calvin and the
Puritans, you have seen some people who have argued that the Puritans
had a doctrine of assurance which actually lead people to despair,
whereas Calvin had this wonderful, warm, fuzzy view of assurance and
thought that assurance was the essence of everyone's faith. And the
Puritans, the mean and nasty people that they were, came along and
separated faith and assurance and caused all these pastoral problems
amongst people. But you will find these myths out there very eloquently
and elegantly presented, and so it is important for us to study Covenant
Theology so that you will know firsthand what Covenant Theology says,
as opposed to what some people would like to say that Covenant Theology
says.

Eighth. Why study Covenant Theology? Because of the importance of

Covenant Theology to your preaching, to your teaching, to your pastoring,
your Christian living, your counseling, your parenting, can I go on?
Covenant Theology is not just an argument for baptizing babies. And for
my Baptist friends out there who think that my ultimate agenda in life in
Covenant Theology is to have people get their babies wet, you
misunderstand the essence of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology is
at the very heart of Christian theology. As my dear Southern Baptist
friend, Dr. Mark Dever, the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in
Washington, DC, a former J.B. Lightfoot scholar at Cambridge
University, the author of a study on the Puritan, Richard Sibbes, and his
doctrine on the Covenant says, "Lig, Covenant Theology is just the
Gospel." Now I assure you that Mark has no interest, whatsoever, in
getting your baby baptized, but he knows that Covenant Theology is right
at the heart of the doctrine of the work of Christ, of the offices of Christ,
of the doctrine of salvation, of the doctrine of the church, and we could go
on adding to it. It is something very, very central. Covenant Theology has
a fundamental place in the Christian message and it is too important to
be relegated simply as a subset of our doctrine of the sacraments. And
unfortunately, that is pretty much where it has been relegated in
theology.
I listened to a very interesting debate in which Donald Macleod was
expounding Covenant Theology and he made the statement that
Covenant Theology in Scotland today is dead, that it is absent. And he is
not speaking about the liberal churches. He is speaking about the
evangelical church. He says our people do not know what Covenant
Theology is, they are not preaching it. It is not impacting the way they
proclaim. And of course, for those of you who are going to be preachers,
teachers and proclaimers, one of my agendas will be that you will catch a
vision and an understanding of Covenant Theology and it will transform
the way you are preaching the Gospel, because it is rich, and I believe that
you present the objective truth of the Gospel in the richest way possible
as you present Covenant Theology because it is the Scripture. So this is
what we will study together.

What is a Covenant?
Now, what is a Covenant? What is a Covenant? We have already said that
the word covenant comes from the Hebrew berith/birit, and from the
Greek, diatheke, and from the Latin, pactum, foedus, or testamentum.
Now the concept of covenant is not restricted to the Bible. We have
numerous examples of secular Near Eastern covenants that were
happening concurrently as biblical covenants, which were described to
us. We have documents, we have ceremonies, we have information from
other near eastern cultures that employed covenants from the second
millennium BC, for instance, and those covenants come in various forms.

Sometimes covenants were agreements between families. They might be

an agreement not to disagree about land rights. Do you remember when
Isaac was having trouble with people fighting over the wells? So he packs
up and moves away and digs new wells. Well, in that kind of situation,
one of the ways in the Near East that a problem might have been worked
out is that a covenant might have been made. A mutual agreement,
saying, "Okay, we will work here, we'll farm here, we'll draw water here
and my herdsman won't go in and draw water from your wells and yours
shouldn't come over to my wells and draw water, etc." It was a legal way,
a contractual way of dealing with problems in day-to-day life.

There were other forms of covenants as well. For instance, covenants

were used as international treaties. Let's say a suzerain, and by a suzerain
I mean some sort of petty monarch, someone who has the power over a
particular region, conquers another tribe. It was not uncommon in the
ancient Near East for a suzerain to go into an area, conquer a people, and
basically require them to make a covenant with him, and that covenant
would go something like this: "If you will pay me a tithe of your plantings,
your yield at harvest time, if you will promise to offer your sons of
fighting age to me in military service in times of war; if you will promise
not to rebel against me, and if you will promise to recognize my lordship
over you, then I will (a) not slaughter you immediately, and (b) provide a
system of justice and courts and establish order in your land and we'll get
along." And in that context the relationship was rather unequal. The
suzerain had all the chips and the vassal basically had the choice: I either
enter into this agreement or we are wiped out.

Now that, by the way, is exactly the circumstance that we find in Joshua
9-10 with the Gibeonites. Do you remember? The Gibeonites had heard
that the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea on dry land. They had heard of
the power and miracles done by Moses, that Israel had wiped out two
large cities, Jericho and Ai, and were heading for them. And everybody
else, you remember, in Joshua 9 verses 1-2, decided they would what?
They would band together in a military compact and fight together
against Joshua and Israel. And from Joshua 9:3 and following, we see
that the Gibeonites were the one exception. They knew that to fight
against Israel was going to mean sure doom. And so they knew that their
only hope was to do what? Get a covenant with the Israelites.

Now the only problem was that the Lord had told the Israelites not to
make a covenant with anybody in the land. But that did not phase the
Gibeonites, because they understood correctly that if they couldn't get a
covenant, they were going to die, and so whatever they had to do to get a
covenant, that looked like a good option. And so by hook or by crook, the
Gibeonites pretended as if they did not live in the land of Canaan, as if
they were a tribe from outside the land of Canaan that had heard about
Israel moving into the land of Canaan, and they just wanted to snuggle up
with them and be buddies and make a covenant. And so they exchanged
food. What was that? A covenantal meal. We will talk about that later.
And they entered into a covenant with Israel, but the elders of Israel
forgot to do what? Ask the Lord. And then, a few days later, they discover
that the Gibeonites are Canaanites, they do live within the land. And what
did the people want the elders of Israel and Joshua to do? Kill them all.
And what does Joshua say? We cannot kill them, because we have made a
covenant with them. There was the understanding that the Gibeonites
had entered into a relationship with the Lord by the relationship that they
had entered into with Israel with the covenant. And so that kind of treaty
between suzerain and vassal is even illustrated in Scripture. So a
covenant is not something that is unique to Scripture. It is a type of
commitment, whether it is a personal commitment or an international
treaty commitment, not unknown outside of Scripture.

But I would like to suggest to you, following Robertson's definition, that a

covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered. And I would like to
look at all three components of that definition. A covenant is a bond in
blood sovereignly administered. That definition does not say everything
that you need to say about the covenant, but it is a good start.

A covenant is a bond.
First of all, a covenant is a bond. That is, it is an oath-bound
commitment. It is a bond. That is what I want to stress. It is a bond. A
covenant is an oath-bound commitment. As we saw in Joshua 9, once the
covenant is made, the relationship is solidified. It is a commitment of the
highest order. And various solemnizing rituals are used in administering
the covenant. For instance, you remember in Jacob and Laban's covenant
agreement, there was the strange event of passing under the rod. What is
that? That is a covenant sign. In Exodus 24:8, when the covenant of
Moses was inaugurated formally, what did Moses do? He took the blood
of a heifer and he sprinkled some of it on the altar and he sprinkled some
of it on the children of Israel, doing what? Confirming that a solemn bond
had been established and confirmed between God and His people.

Eating a meal can be a sign of the covenant. And you see the underlying
significance of that in Near Eastern cultures, as in many other cultures,
when sharing a meal with someone creates a special relationship. The
idea is if I open my home up to you and we sit down and break bread
together, some form of fellowship has happened that really commits me
to treat you in a certain way. And so just like the ancient handshake was a
way of showing your enemy that you didn't have a weapon that you were
going to pull out on him, so sitting down and eating a meal together was
an indication that you had at least enough of a relationship that was
formed that you were not going to attack one another or take advantage
of one another.

And we have things from our cultural past that can help illustrate the
significance of that sitting down and having a meal as a sign of the
inauguration or of the confirmation of a bond. You will remember that in
1688, William of Orange, and Mary, his wife came to the throne of
Britain, and they replaced the Stewart monarchy. The Stewarts were from
Scotland and though the Stewarts were very unpopular monarchs, they
were the monarchs and because many of the people in the northwest
Highlands of Scotland were Catholics and the Stewarts had very definite
Catholic sympathies, the Stewarts were thus very popular among those
clans. When William and Mary came to the throne, first in England and
then in Scotland, though they were welcomed by the vast majority of
Protestants, there were many of these clans in the Highlands of Scotland
that were not excited at all about them coming to the throne. And so one
of the things that was done in Scotland immediately by the House of
Orange was that they sent out a pledge that was to be signed by all the
chiefs of the clans, basically saying, "We are not going to rebel against you
as king. We recognize that you are the lawful king of Scotland and/or the
king of Great Britain and we recognize you as the king." And all the clan
chieftains were either required to come to Inverness or Edinburgh and
sign this document and do it by a certain date. And there were several
clans whose chieftains did not do that. And one of those clans was the
McDonalds of Glencoe. They were a small, motley, and rather unpopular
clan known for cattle thieving from their neighbors, and they lived there
in the valley of Glencoe, a very beautiful place if you have ever seen it.
And their clan chieftain got on his horse and made his way to Inverness
and got to Inverness a day before the thing was to be signed and was told
no, you are supposed to go to Edinburgh to sign yours. So, he showed up
in Edinburgh several days late to sign his little pledge of loyalty. And the
government in Edinburgh decided that he was going to be made an
example of, and so some Campbells from Argyle were sent up with a
regiment to Glencoe in the dead of winter, a month or so later, with the
assignment of slaughtering all of the McDonalds in Glencoe. And this was
going to be a message sent to all of the Highland clans that if you mess
with us, we're going to attack you and kill you. And so the army regiment
from Argyle that was given this job of slaughtering all of the McDonalds
showed up in the valley of Glencoe in the middle of a driving snowstorm
and they bumped into some of the McDonalds, who promptly invited
them into their home, and feasted them for three days. They slaughtered
their best-fattened calves and they gave them the best food, the best wine,
the best everything that they could find, never knowing that these people
were sent to slaughter them. And in the middle of the night on the third
day, the regiment got up and began to systematically slaughter the
McDonalds. The women and children had to escape over the mountains
in the middle of two or three feet of snow and make it to the next village
and some of the survived to tell the tale, but most of the men were
slaughtered by this regiment of soldiers. Well, as you can imagine, the
outrage against this act was heard all over Scotland. In fact, until
recently, if you were a Campbell, you couldn't get a bed at an inn in the
Highlands. And if you go, and your last name is Campbell, say your name
is Smith and you will stand a better job of getting a bed in an inn. The
part of the infamy of the deed was that these people had accepted
hospitality. Their feet had been under the table of the McDonalds and
then they had turned against them. And it was the ultimate breach of not
only honor, but of Highland hospitality, because the man whose feet had
been under your table and has received your favor is not to return
disfavor. And so you can see how the eating of a meal in the Near East
would be a very sacred act, showing some sort of bond forming between
two peoples or two tribes.

And so these sorts of signs of the covenant are given to us in the Old
Testament and that is why you see the Gibeonites in Joshua 9:14
exchange bread and supplies with the Israelites. You see what is going on
there? They are sharing supplies for a meal there. That is the forming of a
covenant. That is a ritual aspect of the covenant.

Note also, that these signs of commitment factor into God's covenants
with us. In the time of Noah in Genesis 9, the sign of the rainbow is given
by God to assure Noah of the certainty of His promises. When Abram is
struggling in Genesis 17, at his massively advanced age to believe that
God is really going to give him an heir, he is given the sign of
circumcision, a visible, tangible sign designed to assure him of God's
purposes, God's promises. In Exodus 31:13 and 17, when Israel is being
set apart as different from all the other nations, the sign of the Sabbath is
a sign to them as something that shows their uniqueness amongst all the
tribes around them. It serves—this sign serves—not only to assure the
believer, but it serves a witness function, to show the world whose you
are. So a covenant is a bond, it is an oath bound commitment.

A covenant is a bond in blood.

The second thing that we need to see about a covenant is that it is a bond
in blood. That is, it is a life and death relationship. There is a life and
death obligation involved in the bond of the covenant. It is a bond in
blood.

Two examples of this. Turn with me to Genesis. We will look at Genesis in

greater detail later, but I want you to see what happens here. You
remember in a suzerain-vassal treaty, we talked about the overlord
coming in and conquering a tribe and the tribe has to make promises to
the overlord that they will not rebel and that they will provide military
service and they will pay their tithe, etc. And then the lord declares that
He won't kill them, etc.

Let me tell you how that was normally made. In the Near East, very
frequently, the way that covenant would have been solemnized is that
animals would have been slaughtered and the animals would have been
parted and the leaders of the conquered people would have been asked as
vassals, as servants, as those who had been conquered, to walk between
the pieces. By walking between the pieces, they were taking what is
known as a self-maledictory oath. Now a malediction of course is just a
bad word. So a self-maledictory oath is a self-curse. In other words, "Be it
done to us, as we have done to these animals if we are not faithful to our
commitments that we have made to you in the covenant. Slaughter us,
overlord, just like we have slaughtered these animals, if we break our
commitments that we have made in the covenant."

Now in Genesis, 15, we see something very interesting. Abram asks a

question of the Lord. In verse 8 of Genesis 15, Abram says, "Oh Lord God,
how may I know that I shall possess it," and he is talking about the land
of Canaan. "How may I know that I may possess it?" And the Lord says to
him in verse 9, "'Bring me a three year old heifer and a three year old
female goat and a three year old ram and a turtle dove and a young
pigeon'. Then he brought all of these to him and cut them in two and lay
each half opposite the other, but he did not cut the birds, and the birds of
prey came down upon the carcasses and Abram drove them away, and
now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram and
behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. And God said to Abram,
'know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is
not theirs where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years. But I will
judge the nation whom they will serve and afterwards, they will come out
with many possessions. And as for you, you will go to your fathers in
peace, and you shall be buried at a good old age. Then in the fourth
generation, they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not
yet complete'. And when it came about when the sun had set, it became
very dark and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and flaming torch
which passed between these pieces."

Now that bizarre scene in response to the simple question, "How am I

going to know that I am going to have the land, Lord?" is simply a
covenant-making ceremony, where animals are slaughtered and the
vassal of the covenant walks between the pieces, right? Wrong. The vassal
in that covenant didn't walk between the pieces. The suzerain, the
sovereign, walked between the pieces. And therefore, he was saying to
Abram, "Abram, if I do not give you the land, be it done to me as we have
done to these animals." Now anybody in the Near Eastern world, who
picked that up and was familiar with how covenants ought to be made,
would be on the floor having read that passage, because there is no
example in any other world religion of either, (a) a God who enters into
covenant with His people, or, (b) a God who takes upon Himself the self-
malediction for the fulfillment of the promises of the covenant.

Now we will speak more of that when we get to Genesis 15. But you see
here this relationship is a life-and-death relationship. It is of the utmost
seriousness. When God calls down curses upon Himself, it is serious. This
is not the only place, by the way, where this occurs. If you would turn to
Jeremiah 34, and the interesting thing about this is that this event with
Abram is occurring circa 2000 BC, and Jeremiah 34 is going to be
occurring about 600 B.C. And at the beginning of the end of the history of
the Abrahamic line as a nation, we have proof that the children of Israel
still understood the significance of that covenant-making ceremony. Here
in Genesis 15 there is the covenant-making ceremony (2000 BC), and
now we have the same ceremony in Jeremiah 34. Do you remember what
happens? Do you remember what was going on? Jeremiah had told the
people, "Look, you are breaking God's law, you are taking Hebrews as
slaves. You are not following the laws of Leviticus. God is going to curse
you. He is going to send you into exile. He is going to capture you. He is
going to destroy you. He is going to bring in the Babylonians. They are
going to pillage and plunder you." And suddenly, everybody got religion.
And they suddenly say, "Oh we'll do everything that the Lord has said."
And they freed their slaves and they started walking right. They sort of
turned over a new leaf, had a sawdust trail conversion, and they actually
walked between pieces. We are told here in Jeremiah 34 that the leaders
of Israel walked between the pieces. Look at the passage there. "The word
which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after King Zedekiah had made a
covenant with all the people who were in Jerusalem to proclaim release to
them." And then you see Jeremiah's condemnation of the fact that the
children of Israel had made this covenant and then backed off on it.

Now look at what he says in verse 18: "And I will give the men who have
transgressed My covenant, who have not fulfilled the words of the
covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and
passed between its parts, the officials of Judah, and the officials of
Jerusalem, the court officers, and the priests, and all the people of the
land, who passed between the parts of the calf, and I will give them into
the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life.
And their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts
of the earth. And Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into
the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those who seek their life,
and into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon which has gone away
from you. 'Behold, I am going to command,' declares the LORD, 'and I
will bring them back to this city; and they shall fight against it and take it
and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation
without inhabitant.'"

Now you know what had happened. They tried their reform for a while,
they didn't like it, they decided to break God's law again, and to take back
their slaves. And the Lord said, "You can't do that to Me. You renewed the
covenant, you parted the calf. You walked between the pieces. You
recommitted yourself to being faithful to the vows that you took all the
way back at Sinai so long ago and then you reneged on it and therefore, I
am going to bring judgment against you."

It is very, very graphic, isn't it, what He says there in verses 18, 19, 20.
Understand the picture that is being given there, when he talks about
their bodies being food for the birds of the skies. He is saying, "I am so
going to cut you off. There is not going to be anyone left to bury you." The
ultimate curse of the covenant is to be cut off from your people. There
isn't going to be anyone left to bury you. The birds of the sky are going to
pick at you like carrion in the road. That is the kind of curse I am going to
bring against you. Why? Because you walked between the pieces and you
didn't fulfill your vow. So a covenant is not just a bond. It is a bond in
blood.

A covenant is sovereignly administered.

And finally, it is sovereignly administered. A covenant is a bond in blood
and it is sovereignly administered. In the biblical covenants, God does not
bargain with us. He doesn't say, "Well if you will think about doing this
and get back with Me tomorrow, I'll think about doing that." In Genesis 2,
when He lays down the ordinances for Adam in the Garden, Adam does
not have input into whether he will keep those ordinances or not. In
Exodus 20, when Moses comes down from Sinai with the Ten
Commandments, there is no Israeli mediation team to discuss which of
the Ten Commandments are going to be kept and which are going to be
bargained away. They are sovereignly administered by the suzerain, the
Lord. The Overlord comes in and declares what the nature of the
relationship will be. So the relationship is unequal at some levels in the
sense that it is the sovereign who determines the nature of the
relationship. But in our case, that relationship is established on a
gracious basis.
God's covenant has conditions
Now that in and of itself raises the issue of whether a covenant is
unilateral or bilateral. Now this is going to be hard, so hang with me here
for a second. This is a big discussion. Is a covenant unilateral or bilateral?
That is, is it one-sided or is it two-sided? Is a covenant wholly promissory
or is there mutuality? Are there mutual responsibilities and obligations
and requirements in the covenant? That is a big debate. The Barthians, in
particular, have attempted to argue strenuously that the covenant is
wholly one-sided. It is not a mutual compact. They hate the word contract
and they will attempt to argue, "No, the Old Testament word, berith, does
not mean contract. It means a one-sided promissory testament of God
with His people."

But is that the case? Is a covenant one sided or two sided? I remember
that question being asked of Palmer Robertson in our Biblical Theology
class. A student said, "Dr. Robertson, is a covenant unilateral or
bilateral?" And Dr. Robertson responded, "Yes." And, that is the right
answer. But you have got to say more, if that is your answer. So here is a
beginning of an answer to that question. The covenant is both unilateral
and bilateral. It is both sovereign and mutual. It is both conditional and
unconditional. Or to use another word, and you will see this word show
up when you read Heppe, and I would encourage all of you, even if you
don't have to read Heppe, to read Heppe because it is relatively brief and
you will have a mound of historical terms at your fingertips after you have
read Heppe. But you will see the terms, monopluron and dipluron used
over and over in Heppe. Those words are basically words speaking of the
covenant being monergistic or synergistic. Do we cooperate in the
covenant (synergistic) or is it one sided: only the power of God is involved
(monergistic)? Well, you will see these terms in Heppe. Let's give an
answer.

A covenant by definition has conditions. There in no such thing as a

wholly unconditional covenant. Don't ever let anybody sell you a bill of
goods that there is such a thing as an unconditional covenant. Why?
Because you have to have two sides before you have a covenant. And if
you have two sides, then you've got requirements. So a covenant by
definition has conditions. And so the covenant of grace is both unilateral
and bilateral. It is conditional and unconditional. It is monergistic and
synergistic. You can pile up all those words that we are paralleling and
stick them in there. There are aspects in the covenant of grace connected
with both those elements. Let's talk about them.

First, God's covenant of grace is sovereignly established. God is not

obligated to come into covenant with us. He does not have to. He chooses
to because of His love. He chooses to enter into a relationship with us
because of His own determinate counsel. And He enters into this
relationship by a sheer act of grace. He chooses man, and not man Him.
In that sense, the covenant is unilateral. It is initiated by God. But even in
that sense, it is bilateral, because it is a relationship and there is no such
thing as a relationship that is not mutual. The minute you say the word
relationship, you have just said the word bilateral, because there are two
sides to it. It goes both ways. The minute you say the word relationship,
there can be no covenant in solitude. And that is why there is no such
thing as a unilateral covenant, a wholly unequivocally unilateral
covenant. There can't be a covenant in solitude. You have to have two to
have a covenant. The minute you say relationship, you are saying mutual.

Secondly, God sovereignly administers the covenant. Man does not

bargain with God. He does not choose his own terms. God is, as it were,
the sovereign, the overlord, and man is the vassal. God declares the
nature of the relationship, He declares its obligations, and in that sense
the covenant is unilateral. It is divinely initiated in its administration. But
it is still bilateral because there are two parties to the covenant. And it is
conditional, in that sense, because there are specified conditions to be
filled by the parties. And that is just as true as the covenant of Abraham
as it is in the covenant of Moses. We will see that in detail.

We can also say, thirdly, that God sovereignly fulfills the conditions of the
covenant. Man, because of his sinfulness, cannot fulfill the conditions of
the covenant relationship, and so God, in His grace, sovereignly elects to
fulfill not only His own conditions, but also His people's conditions. So
you see that is the grace part of the covenant of grace. And so in the
covenant of grace, God allows the curse of the covenant to fall upon His
own Son. The condition is fulfilled, though it is not fulfilled against us,
but for us, on our behalf by the Lord in our place. So in the covenant of
grace, we see God acting unilaterally. He freely chooses, neither under
compulsion or obligation to save us. It is bilateral in the sense that there
is a mutual relationship there. It is conditional in the sense that God does
not forgive us without justice being done.

This is what gets Paul excited in Romans 1 and 2. Don't misunderstand

Paul. Paul is not excited that God is merciful. Paul knows his God is
merciful. That doesn't surprise Paul. What blows Paul away? In Romans 1
and 2, He has shown us His mercy in a way that does not sacrifice His
justice. That is what he is talking about in Romans 1 and 2, when he says
that "He showed Himself to be just and the justifier" in the propitiation of
Jesus Christ. At the cross, we see both God's justice and His mercy at
work, because the cross is simultaneously the vehicle of His justice, or the
expression of His justice and the vehicle of His mercy. And of course, that
covenant of grace is unconditional in the sense that God chooses to fulfill
our conditions on our behalf.

Covenants are conditional.

Now, I could go on, but all I want to stress to you is that you cannot
simply talk about covenants as conditional or unconditional. It is not that
simple, theologically. There is no such thing as a completely
unconditional covenant. Covenants by definition are contracts. But the
beauty of the covenant of grace is that God comes in and He Himself
provides the basis of our part of the relationship. Propitiation in Christ
and then by His grace, He enables us to believe and appropriate the
benefits of the covenant.

Now, when you start to get to that point, you are beginning to see why
Covenant Theology is so close to the heart of the Gospel. Because the
Gospel is about how God provides for salvation, in spite of ourselves and
draws us back into saving relationship with Him.

What therefore is Covenant Theology?

Covenant Theology is a blend of biblical and systematic theology. Let me

go back again. We discussed biblical theology before. If Biblical Theology
is the study of Scripture from the perspective of redemptive history, then
we could call Covenant Theology Biblical Theology. What do I mean by
that? I mean that the Bible structures itself covenantally. When Paul
wants to structure creation and redemption, he parallels Adam as
covenant head with Christ as covenantal head. And he speaks of Adam's
responsibility and failure in the world of the fall comparing that with
Christ and so he gives us a two-point outline of redemptive history.
Creation, separation by fall, and redemption. When the author of
Hebrews wants to talk about the progress of God in redemptive history,
what does he do? He compares the Old Covenant and New Covenant.
Primarily, he has in focus, the contrast of the Mosaic Covenant and the
New Covenant established in Christ. But what is the tool he uses when he
wants to give a panoramic overview of Old Testament and New
Testament relations? The covenant. When the author of Psalm 89 wants
to recount the history of God's dealings with Israel, what does he use to
structure his story? The covenants.

So Covenant Theology is not merely an inspired inference from the

weight of Scripture. It is explicitly the way the Bible structures
redemptive history. Now that does not mean that it is illegitimate to say I
am going to do a biblical theological study of the holiness of God in
history and I am going to show the difference between Old Covenant and
New Covenant as to what we find about what God reveals about His
holiness in the Mosaic period, the Davidic period, the Prophetic period,
and then in the New Covenant under Christ and the Apostles. There is
nothing illegitimate about that. But that is not how God in the Scriptures
structures redemptive history, He uses covenants to do that. And so there
is a sense in which Covenant Theology is Biblical Theology.

Covenant Theology needs to be Systematic

But Covenant Theology is more than Biblical Theology. The one great
shortcoming of Biblical Theology is that it can only be thematic, it cannot
be ultimately systematic. You have to have Systematic Theology. Now I
am not just saying that because I am a systematic theologian, although it
helps. Systematic Theology does not simply look at exegesis, which draws
out of the text what the text is teaching. Systematic Theology just does
not simply look at the history of redemption and themes in the history of
redemption. Systematic Theology integrates everything we know from the
history of redemption, from the study of Biblical Theology, from the
study of exegetical theology, from the study of Historical Theology and
Pastoral Theology and everything. And it brings it all to bear and gives a
well-rounded, biblical, synthesized presentation of truth.

So Covenant Theology is not only Biblical Theology, it is Systematic

Theology, too. Because Covenant Theology shows us how to relate the
truth about Adam and Christ, and parallels the federal headships of
Adam and Christ. It shows us how to relate that to the doctrine of the
person and work of Christ. And it shows us how to relate that to the
doctrine of the church, it shows us how that relates to the doctrine of the
sacraments, and it shows us how that relates to the doctrine of salvation.
It connects a whole host of biblical truths and synthesizes it in a
digestible form and even more importantly than that, it gives it a shape in
which it can be presented for the sake of expressing the Gospel. If you
learn Covenant Theology, you will learn more deeply what the atonement
was and did, and how it ought to be proclaimed for the sake of building
up Christians and drawing unbelievers to Christ. So Covenant Theology is
both Biblical and Systematic Theology. We might call it biblical Biblical
Theology, but it is also a form a Systematic Theology because it integrates
a whole set of other themes which are related to the idea of covenant, in
both Old Testament and New Testament.

And what we are going to be doing in this study is attempting to unpack

what the Scriptures say about the covenant. We will do it progressively
and chronologically and we will try and integrate that with what we know
about the doctrines of the covenants in history and we will try and
synthesize that in the work of Systematic Theology. And we will try and
do it in such a form that it will be digestible enough that you can then
articulate it yourself, whether you are teaching third grade Sunday School
or whether you are teaching grad students at Vanderbilt, or whether you
are teaching farmers from Morton, so that you can proclaim the Gospel
with covenantal eyes. Because that is the framework by which our Lord
Jesus on the last night of His public ministry before the crucifixion, that
is the framework by which He determined to explain the meaning of His
life and death to His closest disciples. Let's look to the Lord in prayer.

 History and Overview of Covenants
If you have your Bibles, please open to Genesis 1:24 as we read God's
word.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind:
cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it
was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the
cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its
kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God
created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to
them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living
thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you
every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every
tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every
beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that
moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for
food”; and it was so. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it
was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth
day.

Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy Word. May He add His blessing to
it. Let’s pray together.

Father, thank you for bringing us back together again to study your
Word. We thank You for faithful men in the past who have taught us
about the truth of Scripture. We pray that as we learn from them and
that as we learn from your Word, our spiritual lives would be shaped
and molded by the truth, that our ability to minister to the people that
You have called us to serve would be enhanced by our knowledge of the
truth and that we would have an experiential grasp of this truth. That
we would not only be amazed by it intellectually, but we would be
transformed by it personally. We ask these things in Jesus’ name.
Amen.

Historical Overview
What I want to begin with today is to give you a little bit of a historical
overview of Covenant Theology. And it may be helpful for you as we do
this, to pull out the Macleod article that you read. And I am sure that you
poured over it in great detail, but you might want to pull it out anyway
and put it next to your sheet as we go through, it will help you perhaps
with some of the names and some of the concepts. I want to give you a
little historical background on Covenant Theology before we get going, so
that we’re confident about development, and so that we are confident
about certain terms and aspects of Covenant Theology as we study this
straight out of the Scriptures. Maybe we will even get to some of the
original covenant material from the Scripture in the second half of class
today.

As we said last time, Covenant Theology is a blending of both Biblical

and Systematic Theology. If I could grossly oversimplify and give very
short definitions, again, Biblical Theology is the study of the Bible from
the perspective of redemptive history. It is looking at the Scriptures in
terms of the eras in which God unfolded His plan of redemption and it is
asking perhaps about specific themes. What do we learn about this
particular theme in this particular era of redemptive history? And then,
what do we learn about it in the next era of redemptive history and how
does God unfold that particular theme as revelation progresses?

A classic example, by the way, of that type of study of Biblical

Theology would be a study of the doctrine of sin from a historical
perspective. We have no listing of the Law of God prior to Exodus 20.
And because John has told us that sin is lawlessness, and Paul has told us
in Romans 2 that where there is no law, there is no sin, we know that you
have to have law to have sin. And as we know from the Apostle Paul’s
comments in Romans 2, there was sin prior to the giving of the Ten
Commandments in Exodus 20.

So the way God unfolds and tells you about the doctrine of sin prior to
Exodus 20 is different than the way that you learn about it after Exodus
20 and all the ceremonial law and all the judicial law and all the moral
law in its various ordinances and statutes.

Now, to be sure, the book of Genesis has a very clear doctrine of sin.
You may remember the liberals tell us that there are multiple authors of
the Pentateuch, and in particular, there are multiple authors of the book
of Genesis. There was one who was in the tradition that used the term
Yahweh to describe God, and one was in a tradition who used Elohim to
describe God, and one was in the deuteronomic tradition, and one was in
the priestly tradition and there are all sorts of variations of that particular
JEDP scheme. But even the liberals admit that the aim of the
author/authors in the first eleven chapters of Scripture is to give you a
very clear concept of the doctrine of sin. I mean you can’t get out of
Genesis 3 without noticing that something is awry. And you can’t get out
of Genesis 4 without noticing that something is awry. And then Genesis
5 and 6, and 10 especially, there is a tremendous emphasis on sin even
though there is no first command, second command, third command,
fourth command given to you in those chapters.

You know in Genesis 4, that when Cain murders Abel, that he should
not have done that. You don’t need Exodus 20 written prior to that time
to know that. But let me tell you what, no matter how strong a doctrine
of sin you have, coming out of that patriarchal era, when you get to the
book of Leviticus, believe me, your doctrine of sin, your understanding of
sin is enhanced, because in the unfolding of God’s revelation He teaches
you things about sin that you would have never dreamt about, no matter
how well you had taken in those truths earlier recorded from an earlier
time in His plan of redemption in the book of Genesis. He teaches you
things that you would have never dreamt about by the time you get to
Moses’ exposition of the law. So when you read Leviticus, and when you
read Deuteronomy, and you reflect upon that commands that have been
given in the Book of the Covenant, you are overwhelmed by how
pervasive sin is in your experience and in the experience of the
community. And so by watching progressively, God unfolds this theme.
You learn something about that doctrine itself. That is Biblical
Theology.

Covenant Theology is Biblical Theology

 ow Covenant Theology is Biblical Theology. But it is biblical Biblical
N
Theology. You remember we said that it is looking at God’s unfolding of
His plan of redemption historically from a covenant perspective, because
that is the way the Scriptures themselves look at that unfolding. When
the Scriptures give us a structure, whereby to understand how God’s plan
is unfolding, that structure is covenant. That is the case in the Old
Testament. Think of Exodus 2, when the cries of the children of Israel in
Egypt go up, and God responds to those cries. Do you remember God’s
response? Moses tells you that when the cries of the children of Israel
went up, God did what? He remembered the covenant He had made with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So even the structuring of the peoples’ minds
at that point in redemptive history was being impacted by the covenant
and they saw the eras of their history marked out in terms of the
covenants that God made. They could remember back through the oral
history passed down to the time of the covenant made with Noah. And
they could remember back to the covenant that God made with Abraham
and then they are being told in Exodus 2 that God’s actions on their
behalf in the Exodus, in bringing them out of Egypt and bringing them
into the Promised Land, are directly related to that covenant relationship
that God had established with Abraham and therefore, that covenant
relationship is used to characterize a whole era. That is the era in which
God inaugurated His covenant relationship with Abraham and then
thinking back before that, that is the era in which God inaugurated His
covenant relationship with Noah. So already by the time you get to the
Exodus, the people of God are beginning to have a memory that is
structured by the events of the covenant.

Now every people has markers in its histories like that by which it
remembers certain great things. In the South, we sort of mark everything
by something known as The War. We are not talking about the First
World War or the Second World War. We are talking about The War,
that is, The War Between The States. And so we even talk about
Antebellum, and Postbellum. It is a huge marker in our history. It
doesn’t matter what side you are on or anything else. You know that is a
marker in the corporate minds of the people. Every people has events
like that, that mark out their corporate mind in the way they view their
past and the way they chop it up and explain it and express it.
 The people of God, already by the time of Exodus, are thinking in
terms of these covenant relationships as epic marking events. This is an
incredible event, when God comes and enters into relationship with
Abraham, because at that time, Abraham was a what? A pagan, living in
Ur of the Chaldees. The father of Israel. He is the first Hebrew. What a
tremendous marker in the history of Israel and so it marks off events.

So Covenant Theology is Biblical Theology, but it is also Systematic

Theology we said. That is, Systematic Theology takes the fruits that
Exegetical Theology attempts to draw out of the text the intent of the
divine and human authors in combination. It attempts to draw out of the
text the emphasis and the teaching which they are attempting to convey
in that text, so it takes the fruits of Exegetical Theology, it takes the fruits
of Biblical Theology.

Biblical Theology can’t stand on its own. If you only have Biblical
Theology and you don’t have Systematic Theology, you will end up with a
Thematic Theology which will be kind of like holding a bunch of wet
spaghetti noodles in your hand. There will be all these nice themes that
will be really fun to learn about, but there is no way that you can figure
out how to interrelate them. You have to have Systematic Theology
before you can interrelate all those themes.

Most modern theologians, even the ones who call themselves

Systematic Theologians, are not Systematic Theologians. They are
Thematic Theologians. They get all fired up about one or two themes and
they want to run with the implications of that particular theme, but they
do not integrate it with the rest of biblical truth, and what happens? They
become heretics. Because imbalanced truth becomes untruth because it
refuses to pay attention to the balance of truth that God has given in His
Word.

So Systematic Theology takes the fruits of Exegetical Theology, it

takes the fruits of Biblical Theology and those wonderful themes that are
developed in the history of redemption. It takes the fruits of Historical
Theology because we cannot ignore the understanding of Scripture which
has been gradually accrued in the history of 2000 years of the church.
Protestants don’t have a problem with tradition, we have a problem with
tradition which presumes to be on the same par with the sole authority of
faith which is Scripture. We don’t have a problem with tradition, we just
have a problem with tradition which refuses to be tested according to the
standard of Scripture. So there is much which we glean from the past. In
fact, we can have no appreciation for the depth of Scripture if we skip
over the teaching that has been learned by the church over the last two
millennium in the East and West, beyond the western culture and to the
various cultures of the world, etc. The wonderful thing about the deposit
of Christian truth that we have learned over that time is that it is not fixed
within one cultural framework.

A lot of times modern, specifically evangelical and Reformed

Theology, is accused by people of being peculiarly Western and even
specifically American as opposed to being a world theology. There is
legitimacy to that critique. But, a theology that is well-grounded in
historical theology has its roots in a past which predates the Western and
American and European rise and gives a balance and an understanding,
an appreciation for that truth which we wouldn’t have otherwise. So the
attitude which says, “It is just me and my Bible and don’t confuse me with
all that history and all that other stuff,” is sure to lead you into problems,
because you are cutting yourself off from the communion of saints.

Now see, you cannot be an orthodox Christian and say, for instance,
“Well, I am going to have to sit down and rethink this doctrine of the
Trinity thing.” I am sorry. That is not up for grabs. You can’t sit down
and be an orthodox Christian and say, “You know, I am going to really
rethink this whole virgin birth thing.” No. The Church has already
decided its position on that and it is not up for you or for me to determine
or to rethink that. If you rethink it and decide that it is wrong, that is
fine. You are just not a Christian. And if you rethink it and find out that
it is right, well, you have just reinvented the wheel. We already had it; we
didn’t need your help. I am not being facetious. I am showing how a lot
of people will come along and think of themselves much more highly of
themselves than they ought to. And they will do it in the name, well, I am
being scriptural and I’m really going to think this thing from the ground
floor up. There is a reason why Jesus said to the apostles that they were
going to be the foundation, the bedrock of the Church which He built.
And you don’t lay the foundation again, folks. You lay foundation once.
You get it right the first time and you don’t lay it when you are already
nineteen floors up.

Our job as Christians in the almost twenty-first century is not to lay

the foundation again. Our job is to continue building on the foundation
that has already been laid upon the apostles and the prophets. And that
does not mean reinventing the wheel at every point. Does that mean that
there is no development in Christian Theology? No. Of course there is
development in Christian Theology. There are many areas where we still
need to work things out. We have been going through an era in the West
in particular where the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been worked on
intensively for the last fifty years. You may expect it to be worked on for
the next hundred. We have gotten a lot more questions in the last fifty
years than we have settled with regard to answers.

You may be sure that the doctrine of creation is something that is

going to be worked on for another good hundred years. We have got
more questions right now than we have answers on that particular issue.
So every era has its own distinctive contribution to the building of the
deposit and understanding of Theology. But we don’t rethink the Trinity;
we don’t rethink the virgin birth. That is complete. For the church has
already said, “You don’t believe that Christ is an incarnate person, divine
and human nature in one person, that is fine. You are not a Christian.”
That is not up for rethinking. “You don’t believe in the Trinity, that is
fine. You are not a Christian.” That is Christian doctrine. So we have
some set points that we learn from Historical Theology that keep us from
going awry even in our work with Scripture.

So Systematic Theology takes the fruits of Biblical Theology,

Exegetical Theology, Historical Theology and it integrates them and it
attempts to make as definitive a statement as can be made about a
particular topic, pulling together all that is said about that topic from the
whole of Scripture.

Covenant Theology is both Biblical and Systematic Theology.

That is, it gives us an organizing principle for our Biblical Theology. But
it also provides us a very important category or what the older
theologians would have called a locus, literally, a place. It gives us a very
important category or place in our Systematic Theology. It is the
organizing principle of Biblical Theology in the sense that anyone who is
going to do justice to God’s unfolding plan of redemption has to talk in
terms of covenants. It is the dominant theme featured in the whole issue
of God’s unfolding plan of redemption in history. So you have to talk in
terms of the covenants, if you are going to be scriptural when you are
talking about Biblical Theology.

But if you are going to do Systematic Theology, you are going to

also have a section in your Systematic Theology where you talk about the
covenant of works and the covenant of grace and the covenant of
redemption and their relationship to doctrines like the imputation of
Adam’s sin.

If you are sitting down to write your Systematic Theology, and it is

going to be a bestseller right up there with Berkhof and Reymond and the
rest of them, you are not going to leave out the doctrine of imputation of
Adam’s sin, I mean that is an important doctrine. It has been discussed
and argued about since the fifth century, so you are not going to leave
that one out.

But in order to talk about the imputation of Adam’s sin, you have to
talk about Covenant Theology, because Covenant Theology tells us about
the federal headship of Adam and Christ. And you are not going to get
very far in your understanding of the imputation of Adam’s sin if you
don’t talk in covenant terms.

That is why Augustine, with as good as an answer as he gave to

Pelagius, didn’t quite solve all the issues related to original sin because
Augustine did not have a fully worked out Covenant Theology. Augustine
was a realist in his view instead of a federalist in his view of the
imputation of Adam’s sin, and so Augustine got up to a certain point and
he was stymied. Some of the errors in his theology are related to that
distinction with regard to the imputation of Adam’s sin. So Covenant
Theology is both Biblical Theology and both Systematic Theology, and in
Systematic Theology it has a locus or a place or a heading in which it has
to be discussed.
 And you remember we said last time when we were together, that it is
the bridge between Anthropology (the doctrine of man, and especially the
doctrine of fallen man, the doctrine of man in sin, that locus and that
heading, in Systematic Theology) and the doctrine of salvation or
Soteriology. It is the linking point that gets you from the doctrine of man
in sin and deserving of judgment to the doctrine of man in the state of
grace. The covenant is the vehicle by which God extracts man from that
situation of sin and gets him into a state of grace.

Covenant Theology in the History of the Church

Covenant Theology uses the covenant concept as an organizing principle
for theology in both the sphere of Biblical and Systematic Theology. By
the way, that doesn’t mean that you have to write a Systematic Theology
text where all the chapter headings are labeled, “Covenant this” or
“Covenant that,” or “Covenant the other.” You don’t have to have labeling
to have Covenant Theology. You can go back and you can read Covenant
theologians who didn’t organize their information, for instance, Berkhof.
You can pick up a copy of Berkhof and you will note that “Covenant” is
not in the heading of every section of his Systematic Theology. There is a
distinct section on the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace and
discussion of the Covenant of Redemption. That doesn’t mean that
Berkhof was not a Covenant Theologian. Just because you don’t use it as
the organizing principle for everything in Systematic Theology doesn’t
mean that you’re a Covenant Theologian or not a Covenant Theologian.

But, the covenant is going to play a very significant role in organizing

even your Systematic Theology. This is not a new thing. From the very
earliest Christian theologians, the covenant concept was very
significant in their theology. For instance, in the second century, among
the anti-Gnostic fathers—that is, the orthodox Christian theologians who
were responding to the Gnostic heretics, who were denying a number of
biblical teaching. For example, you remember the Gnostics had a
tendency to deny the fleshly humanity of Christ. They argued that Jesus
only appeared to be human, and that He really didn’t die on the cross as a
man. It only appeared as if He has died on the cross as a man. The
Gnostics taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the same God
as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And I am not going to go
through a whole listing of Gnostic teachings, but I want you to
understand the Gnostic threat was very pervasive in early Christianity.
The Gnostic teaching was the greatest threat to the existence of
Christianity since the apostle Paul was still Saul.

And over against the Gnostics, theologians like Melito of Sardis,

Irenaeus of Leon, Tertullian, and others mounted a massive theological
offensive. And what instrument did they use against the Gnostics and
also against those Jews who were still very prominent in the
Mediterranean world at that time and who denied that the Christians
were legitimately interpreting and claiming the Old Testament
Scriptures? What instrument, what vehicle did they use? They used the
covenant. They used it in three areas.

First of all, against the Gnostics who denied that the God of the Old
Testament was the same as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New
Testament, they used the covenant to show the continuity of the Old
Testament and the New Testament. Irenaeus, if you wanted to
pronounce it strictly in Latin, it would be something like ‘Urenaeus.’ But
Irenaeus is what you will hear most frequently. Irenaeus, the great
second century father from Gall (modern day south of France), wrote a
book called Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, in which he
showed that God’s redemptive plan had been unfolded in covenants with
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, the New Covenant, and Christ. He
was Palmer Robertson, 1800 years ahead of his time.

One of the ways which he showed the covenant continuity of the Old
Testament and the New Testament Scriptures was in this brilliant way.
For a number of years, in fact from the time that the Gospels were
written, what was the favorite tool of Christians in showing to Jewish
believers or Jewish followers, Jewish people of the Jewish religion, what
was the favorite way for Christians to show them that Jesus was the
Messiah, promised of old? To go to Old Testament passages and show
the prophecies about the Messiah and then to bring them over into the
events of the life of Christ and the work of the Apostles and show how
they were fulfilled. And you get a lot of this in the New Testament. It is
in the Gospel of Matthew, it is in the Gospel of Mark, it is in the Gospel of
Luke, it is in John and it is in Paul. There are very few books in the New
Testament which do not use that technique and it makes perfect sense,
doesn’t it? You are writing to an initially Jewish audience. You are trying
to convince them that this is not a rejection of the traditions of old. It is
the fulfillment of the traditions of old, and that Jesus Christ is in fact
fulfilling the prophecies made about Him by the Old Testament prophets
and therefore He ought to be believed in as the Messiah.

Well, Irenaeus and before him, Justin Martyr, had taken that
argument and turned it against the Gnostics and here is how they did it.
They said, “We Christians all know that Christ as Messiah fulfilled the
prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. Now by what God did those
Old Testament prophecy?” You see, what they are leading? They are
saying, “If Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures of the Old Testament, then the
God of the Old Testament who revealed those prophecies to the those Old
Testament prophets must be the same God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” They showed, by a reversing of the argument, that if Jesus
fulfilled those prophecies then the Old Testament itself must be in unity
and continuity with the New Testament. Because if the God of the Old
Testament and the God of the Old Testament prophets was utterly
unrelated to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, why would
Jesus be fulfilling those prophecies? So they turned the argument, which
had originally been aimed toward the Jews and they covenantally angled
it at the Gnostics. And they said this shows that the Old and the New
Testament are in continuity not in opposition. So they used covenant
arguments.

They also used the covenant concept to argue against the Jews who
denied that Christians were the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic
promises. They used the covenant concept, and of course, they picked up
on a theme which Paul expounds in I Corinthians 10, the disobedience of
Israel to the covenant promises. Remember Paul in I Corinthians 10
warns Christians not to do the same thing that the disobedient,
unbelieving children of Israel did in the wilderness. They doubted God.
They tempted Him. They refused to have faith and trust in His promises
that He would bring them through and provide for them while they were
in the wilderness. And the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 10 basically says
to Christians, don’t you do that.
 Well, using the covenants, these first and second and third century
theologians mounted that same argument against the children of Israel,
accept they applied it to the time of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now again this
was not original to them. Peter has done this in the Book of Acts. You
remember Peter’s first sermon in the Book of Acts, I mean, it was a
scorcher. Basically, the thrust of the concluding point is, “Men of Israel,
this man who has been attested to you to be the Messiah, the Son of the
living God, you have put to death by the hands of sinful men.” And so
after, Peter has amassed Scripture passage after Scripture passage,
confirming that Jesus was Messiah and confirming that the events of
Pentecost were the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies especially
given by Joel, then he says, “And gentlemen, you killed Him, your own
Messiah. You killed Him.” That argument is reduplicated and you pick
up, you cannot miss this when you pick up Melito of Sardis, and read his
Peri Pascha, his homily on the Passover. Here you see him using that
same argumentation, that covenantally yes, Christians are simply Jews
and Gentiles who have been embraced by the Abrahamic promises
according to the promises of God of old Abraham to bless him and to be a
blessing to the nations and to bring the Gentiles, and they can go to Amos
and Jeremiah and all sorts of other places to prove that. So they use the
covenant concept in both their arguments against the Gnostics and
against the Jews, and, as I mentioned before with Irenaeus, they use it to
structure their redemptive history. You can find this in Irenaeus, you can
find this before Irenaeus, in Justin Martyr, you can find this in Tertullian,
you can find this in Lactantius, you can find it in Clement of Alexandria,
you can eventually find it in Augustine, who learned his theology of the
covenants primarily from Irenaeus and his contemporaries.

So the idea of the covenant concept being a structuring principle for

Christian theology is not a sixteenth century phenomenon. Rather, it is a
patristic phenomenon, occurring as early as the first century of the
Christian church. If you look at the apostolic fathers, that collection of
writings that contains writings by Ignatius of Antioch— it contains
writings by Polycarp, it contains a little book called theEpistle to the
Corinthians, it contains a book called the Shepherd of Hermas—that
collection of writings which was probably completed by 115. In that
collection of books already, in, say the book of Corinthians, in that Epistle
to the Corinthians, already by that time, A.D. 115, you can see the
covenant concept being used just like it was used in the Old Testament,
that is for moral exhortation to believers. Okay. So, the covenant concept
was of long standing in the Christian tradition as an organizing principle
and a significant theological locus.

Now not surprisingly, as the knowledge of Hebrew fades and as Latin

becomes the lingua franca of the Christian church, especially of the
western Christian church, the covenant concept fades into the
background theologically. Now, there is no expert in the covenant
concept in the medieval, but we need one. But we do know that prior to
the Reformation, even in the time of late medieval nominalism, (from
which Luther came, the tradition that began to dabble a little bit and
rearticulate the Catholic church doctrine of justification, and Luther
eventually came out with a full-blown reworking of the Catholic doctrine
of justification according to the Apostle Paul), well, in the nominalist
tradition the covenant idea was again prominent. So we know that over
long periods of the church’s history, the covenant idea occupied a very
significant place in the church’s theologizing.

Now, generally we think of Covenant Theology as a subset of

Calvinism. We see it as something that is a peculiar mark of the
Reformed Branch of the Reformation. That is true and not true. I mean,
obviously, all Orthodox Christianity of any form believes in both unity
and continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, from Old
Testament to New Testament. It believes that, though we have two
testaments, we have one Bible and it has a unified message and is
integrated, and that the New Testament gives us both an interpretation of
the Old Testament, it gives us both a hermeneutical map to the Old
Testament and gives us also a fulfillment of the Old Testament. All
Orthodox Christian Theology accepts that, and to that extent it is
Covenant Theology.

But Covenant Theology in a stricter sense of the term is indeed

something that has been uniquely related to the Reformed tradition.
Because it was during the Renaissance and Reformation and especially
the rediscovery and the reapplication of the church’s teachers to the
original languages of Scripture that the covenant concept again became
important, even dominant, in Christian theological thinking and writing.
You remember we said last time that the Latin term testamentum is what
we get our modern terms Old Testament and New Testament, and it’s is
very easy if you’re operating out of a Latin framework to see how you can
miss all that rich Hebrew and Near Eastern background information that
helps you understand what a covenant is in the first place. And it is easy
to see how you can miss the clear hints that were there in the Greek New
Testament, unless you understand that the basic vocabulary of New
Testament Greek is not determined by classical Greek, but is determined
by Hebrew.

In other words, for building your theological vocabulary of New

Testament Greek, it is more important that you pay attention to Hebrew
terms and concepts than it is for you to pay attention to classical Greek
terms and contexts. That is why Hebrew is so important, because behind
those Greek concepts are most often very directly and genetically Hebrew
concepts, and not just Septuagint concepts that come from the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Now, as the Reformers went back to the original sources, you

remember one of the mottos of the humanist Reform that began in the
1500’s, maybe a little before that and lead to the Renaissance and
Reformation was ad fontes, or back to the fountain, back to the source.
The idea was go back and read the Greek directly. Don’t read a Latin
translation of Homer; go back and read the Greek. Don’t read a Latin
translation of Ecclesiastes; go back and read the Hebrew. Go back to the
original sources. So there was a tremendous amount of work done in
recovering old documents and such.

And out of that it is not surprising that a renewed interest in the

covenant developed. And it developed in a number of places in the
Reformed tradition in the 1500’s. Perhaps you have heard that Ulrich
Zwingli, 1484-1531, the Reformer in Zurich, made much of the covenant
concept in his writing. He used the idea of the covenant to refute the
Anabaptists on the issue of infant baptism. Zwingli taught that God had
made a covenant with Adam, though he doesn’t specify whether that is a
prefall or a postfall covenant, but Zwingli was significant in the
development of the use of the covenant concept.
 Again, Heinrich Bullinger, who succeeded him, 1504–1575, wrote a
very important book called Of the One and Eternal Testament or
Covenant of God. He argued that the various covenants of Scripture are
organically related, and that the New Covenant was a fulfillment of all the
previous covenants. Bullinger is more explicit in his use of the covenant
in the structuring of his total theology than either Zwingli or Calvin.
Calvin, of course, has those very important sections in the Institutes on
the covenant, especially as it relates to the Scripture interpretation. But
he doesn’t use it as the organizing principle of his book as did Bullinger.

John Calvin, 1509–1564, taught the unity of the covenants. Calvin

very highly developed his doctrine of the sacraments in light of the
covenant. This was especially crucial in illustrating the Reformed view of
the Lord’s Supper. If you don’t have an adequate understanding of
Covenant Theology you are weaponless against a Roman Catholic
exposition of Old Testament and New Testament language about the
sacraments. If you do not have an adequate covenantal framework for
your doctrine of the sacraments, you have no chance against a Roman
Catholic who sits down with you and says, “Well, what does Peter mean
when he says, ‘Consequently baptism now saves you.’”? See, if you do
not have a covenant understanding of that realistic language, you are
duck soup.

And Calvin gives a covenant framework of how we understand the

sacraments. He goes back, for instance, and he says, “What is the tree of
life and what is the Garden?” And his answer is, “Well it is a sacrament.”
Calvin’s argument is that where there is a sacrament, there must be a
covenant. Why? Because a sacrament is a covenant sign. So did the tree
of life, mystically, magically convey eternal life? Calvin says, “No, it was a
sign and a seal of a covenant promise.” And by the way, Calvin is telling
you through the back door, isn’t he, that he believes that there exists a
covenant prior to the fall of God and Adam, because if there is a sign of a
covenant prior to the fall, then there must be a covenant prior to the fall.
So he expounds the covenant signs of Noah and of Abraham and of the
time of Moses.

Caspar Olevianus is another sixteenth century Reformer who

contributed substantively to our understanding of the covenant. He, a
little bit younger than these other guys, lived from 1536 - 1587. He was a
theologian in Heidelberg and he and Ursinus wrote the Heidelberg
Catechism that begins with that gorgeous question, “What is your only
hope in life and in death?” Caspar Olevianus and Ursinus are the authors
of that Heidelberg Catechism. And they worked out the doctrine of the
covenant of grace.

One of the things that we are going to see especially in our study of
Covenant Theology is that determining who the parties of the covenant of
grace are can be a little bit tricky. Is the Covenant of Grace made between
God and the elect or is it made between God and Christ? And then we are
the beneficiaries of the covenant of grace made between God and Christ.
Reformed Theologians worked around that in different way for a long
time before they came up with what they were satisfied was a satisfactory
answer. And Olevanius argued that the covenant of grace was made
between God and Christ, and that for the elect, Christ is their
representative. Olevanius also explicitly wrote about the eternal
intertrinitarian Covenant of Redemption and the prefall covenant of
works. And those three covenants, the covenant of redemption in
eternity past, the prefall Covenant of Works, and the covenant of grace,
were the foundational covenants for seventeenth century Covenant
Theology. When Scots like Robert Rollock take the concept, those three
covenants are in place.

Now, finally we get to a point where we get to Macleod and he can give
some help.

The next major figure in the development of Covenant Theology is

Robert Rollock of the University of Edinburgh, 1555–1598. You will see
Rollock’s name there in the Macleod article. Rollock wrote a book called
Questions and Answers Regarding the Covenant of God.

Now Rollock did a lot of work on the matter of the Covenant of

Works. He taught that the condition of the Covenant of Works was
complete obedience to the moral law of God as summarized in the Ten
Commandments. You heard me right. The argumentation being that the
moral law, based again on the exposition of Romans 2, was not first given
at Mt. Sinai. The moral law originated in the Garden and was written on
Adam’s heart. So even though it wasn’t written down on tablets of stone
until Exodus 20, the moral law was in place from the beginning of man’s
creation. This is one of the great contributions of Rollock to the
development of the Doctrine of Works. This covenant, Rollock has said,
was manifest to a certain extent in the conditions of the Mosaic
covenant.

And let me say again that that issue, just like the issue of, “Who are
the parties in the Covenant of Grace, the elect or Christ?”, the issue of
“What is the Mosaic Covenant? — is it a Covenant of Grace or is it the
covenant revisited?’ has been significantly debated in the Reformed
history of Covenant Theology.

Now where does the Covenant of Moses fit? Oftentimes it is spoken of

by Paul in an almost negative light and juxtaposed to the Covenant of
Abraham. In the book of Hebrews, when the author of Hebrews speaks of
the first covenant of the Old Testament, oftentimes he has in mind the
Covenant of Moses, the Mosaic Covenant, as opposed to the New
Covenant. So is the Mosaic Covenant some sort of a remanifestation of
the Covenant of Works or not? That debate is with us until this day. You
will find this in the wrings of Meredith Kline, as opposed to people like
John Murray, or other contemporary Reformed scholars. At any rate,
Rollock also developed the relationship between the covenants and the
sacraments so those are your sixteenth century men who worked on
Covenant Theology and its development. Now, into the seventeenth
century.

In the seventeenth century, English Calvinism was very much

influenced by the use of the covenant concept. You have heard of the
Cambridge Theologians, like William Perkins and William Ames. Perkins
and Ames both were Covenant, or Federal Theologians and made much
use of the covenant concept. Ames, of course, was a major influence on
New England Calvinism. And John Preston also discusses the covenant
concept in his book, The New Covenant, or the Saints Portion, written in
1629. John Ball, another Cambridge Calvinist wrote a book called The
Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, in 1645 and this again was another
classic statement on Covenant Theology.
 One theme that you will hear from time to time in terms of the history
of Covenant Theology is that Covenant Theology was a reaction against
high Calvinism, and that Theodore Beza, good old Teddy Beza, is always
the bad guy. And whoever is against Beza, whether it is Arminius or
whoever else is always the good guy wearing the white hat. And the
argument will be, well, Covenant Theology came along to kind of modify
Beza and scholastic Calvinism. And this is particularly a theory when
you hear people say, “Johannes Cocceius was the inventor of Covenant
Theology,” they will say, “you see he came along to give a warmer more
biblical exegetical warm fuzzy view of theology than nasty old mean
Theodore Beza.” But Beza was just as much a Covenant Theologian and
more of one than was Johan Cocceius. So the idea of Covenant Theology
was designed to mollify the harsher characteristics of predestinarianism
in Calvinism is just utter rubbish. And John Ball is one to prove it.
Because Ball, here he is writing a treatise on the Covenant of Grace and
he drinks at the fount of Theodore Beza all the time. So you don’t see a
dichotomy between these two things.

Now back to the continent for a minute in, still the seventeenth
century, two important names to remember are Francis Gomoris, and
Francis Turretin. Turretin was of course teaching in the Academy of
Geneva. And Turretin is especially important for his Covenant Theology.
Why? Because who taught Turretin’s Systematic Theology textbook and
taught about two thousand Reformed ministers last century? Charles
Hodge. Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology textbook was Francis
Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and Dabney taught out of
Turretin. So both in the north and the south in the nineteenth century,
Turretin was the basic Systematic Theology textbook. So his Covenant
Theology is very important, not only for his own time, but for our time,
because it was transmitted through those classes.

Active in Britain and Ireland at this time was a gentleman named

James Ussher, spelled with two s’s., in fact, Archbishop Ussher, to be
exact. Archbishop Ussher was the author of The Irish Articles, a
confessional statement used for the Episcopal Church in Ireland. And
both his Irish articles, which were written in 1615, and his Systematic
Theology, called a Body of Divinity, were influential in the language and
the theology of a little-known confession known as The Westminster
Confession. In fact, Ussher was voted to be a delegate to The
Westminster Assembly, although he did not participate, but his theology
was very influential on The Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are built on a Covenant
Theology model. There is an entire section of the Confession devoted to
the covenant concept, chapter seven. The view of the offices of Christ in
chapter eight is impacted by a covenant outlook on the work of Christ.
The doctrine of the church, the doctrine of the sacraments, the doctrine of
the law, the doctrine of Christian liberty, we could go on and on and on
how the covenant concept impacts The Westminster Confession.
Covenant Theology is part of the warp and woof of The Westminster
Confession. Many of you will have the edition of The Confession that was
published by the Free Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and in this
edition of The Confession, they actually have included in the back a little
document called The Sum of Saving Knowledge. And that Sum of
Saving Knowledge, and by the way that document was written by two
Scottish theologians, James Durham, and David Dixon, was an explicitly
covenantal document designed to show how the Gospel might be
presented in Covenant terms. It was written in 1650 and became so
popular that it was often bound with copies of The Confession.

Now also in the seventeenth century back on the continent we come

back to Johan Cocceius who is often wrongly credited with being the
inventor of Covenant Theology. He was born in Bremen in Germany and
he studied under William Ames in Holland at the University of France
and eventually taught there himself as well as teaching at Lyden. He
specialized in Hebrew, Rabbinics, Philology and Typology, and wrote a
book called The Doctrine of the Covenants and Testaments of God in
1648. His counterpart, his more Orthodox counterpart on the continent
on the seventeenth century, was a man named Herman Witsius, a
Dutchman we have already mentioned, who wrote a book called The
Economy of the Covenants, which was translated from Latin into
English. And because it was written in Latin, as most theological books at
this time and prior, and because John Cocceius’ work was written in Latin
but was never translated into English, it never had the impact that
Witsius’ work did. But Witsius’ work was translated into English and
eventually became very popular in both Britain and America.

Now, in the eighteenth century, Covenant Theology continued to be

very significant. John Cotton and Jonathan Edwards were both Covenant
Theologians, Federal Calvinists. Charles Hodge in the nineteenth century
carried on the covenant tradition, being influenced most by Westminster
and Turretin. In the twentieth century, Louis Berkhof’s Systematic
Theology again continues in the Federal tradition, and it has been a
seminary textbook for thousands. You should also know that back in
England in the seventeenth century, you have the English Particular
Baptists, that is, Baptists who believed in particular redemption. You
remember there are two classes of Baptists in Britain at this time: the
General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. The General Baptists were
named so because they basically held to a universal atonement position,
while the Particular Baptists held to a limited atonement position,
holding all five points of Calvinism. The Particular Baptists, after 1688,
became more and more explicitly covenantal and Federal in their own
theology. And John Gill, for instance in his Body of Divinity, will give
numerous covenant arguments. A. W. Pink continued that tradition in
the twentieth century with his little book on The Divine Covenants.

Now I need to mention at least one more historic name and that name
is again an eighteenth century Scottish Calvinist name, Thomas Boston.
Boston was a very important Federal Theologian whose collective
writings fill about 12 volumes and were recently reprinted by Richard
Owen Roberts, who prints a lot of the revival literature and such. And
they are well worth laying your hands on if you can get them. But in
those 12 volumes, he has among other things, an exposition of The
Westminster Confession and Catechisms. But he also has a series of
sermons that he preached at his tiny little church down in Ettrick. One
called “A View of the Covenant of Works,” and another was “A View of
the Covenant of Grace”. But if you know Boston at all, the book that you
have heard about most is his book, Human Nature in its Four-Fold
State, oftentimes simply called The Four-Fold State. All of those books
are written from a covenantal perspective, looking at the work of Christ,
the progress of redemption, from a covenant perspective. So he is a name
that you need to know.
 And if I could throw out one more nineteenth century Scottish
Calvinist name, I would throw out the name, Hugh Martin. Hugh Martin
wrote a set of essays on the Covenant, on the priestly work of our Lord,
on the intercession and the mediation of our Lord, which were collected
and put into a book that was titled The Atonement. Hugh Martin was one
of the masters of Covenant Theology in the Nineteenth Century in
Scotland. And his book, The Atonement, and its relation to the covenant,
the priesthood, and the intercession of our Lord, again is in print. That
book is another good example of Covenant Theology now.

The Three Covenants

Covenant Theology, or Federal Theology, organizes itself around three
great covenants. The first is the Covenant of Works. Now the Covenant
of Works is called different things by different Covenant Theologians.
For instance, in The Westminster Confession, the Covenant of Works, or
in The Catechisms, the Covenant of Works is referred to once as the
Covenant of Life, but it is also sometimes referred to as the Covenant of
Nature. So you get different titles for this thing. Now Robertson calls the
Covenant of Works, what? The Covenant of Creation. And we will talk
about why later. But just bear that in mind. Just because you see a
different term does not necessarily mean that it is talking about
something different. You have to be careful with some of these terms
because sometimes, when they are used, the same phrase is used to
describe something different.

1. The Covenant of Works

So the Covenant of Works refers to a pre-fall covenant relationship with
Adam. The Covenant of Works is a pre-fall Covenant relationship with
Adam. In other words, it is a binding and gracious relationship or a
binding and blessed relationship initiated by God, in which he enters into
fellowship with Adam, prior to the fall. The Covenant of Works is a pre-
fall covenant relationship between God and Adam. This Covenant is
asymmetrical. You remember we talked about unilateral and bilateral and
conditional and unconditional and monopluric and dipluric and all those
confusing terms last time. This is not the only time we will talk about
them. I will try and get you even more confused later. Just keep it in the
background. This is an asymmetrical covenant in the sense that there are
not two equal parties entering into a relationship. This is God, out of His
goodness, entering into fellowship with Adam, promising certain
blessings and requiring certain responsibilities. God sovereignly imposes
those conditions on Adam. And we saw an example of that as we read
Genesis 1:24 through the end of the chapter today. In the ordinances
given by God to Adam, Adam was not given the option to say, “Well Lord,
I really like that procreation ordinance, but the labor ordinance, I am
really going to have to think about that one.” There is no bargaining on
Adam’s side in the relationship. So the elements of a covenant are there,
according to Covenant Theologians, even though the term covenant is not
used in Genesis 1 and 2. There are two partners, God and Adam, with
Adam serving as the representative. There are responsibilities, there are
stipulations and there are blessings.

Now Covenant Theology makes it clear that Adam is not a private

individual. He is a public person. When he acts as covenant head he acts
representatively for the entire race. Where do Covenant Theologians get
this from? Not simply from what are clearly the implications of Adam’s
sin in Genesis 4 and 5, but explicitly from Paul’s teaching in Romans 5,
where he parallels Adam and Christ and says, “By one man’s
unrighteousness sin came into the world, so also by one man’s
righteousness all are justified.” So this Adam-Christ parallel from Paul,
in combination with what are clearly the elements of a covenant
relationship with Adam as seen in Genesis 1 and 2, combined in Covenant
Theology give you the framework for a doctrine of the Covenant of
Works. Now this isn’t all we will do on it. We are coming back to this. I
just wanted to do the overview first. Then we will get into the exegesis. I
want us to understand what we are talking about though.

The Passing of the Covenant of Works

Now according to Federal Theology, according to Covenant Theology, the
Covenant of Works no longer continues in its ability to bless. The
stipulations of the Covenant of Works are still incumbent upon us, but it
no longer continues in its ability to bless since the fall. Why? Because in
the Covenant of Works, as formed in the garden between God and Adam,
there is no stipulation for blessing in spite of demerit. There is no
stipulation for forgiveness in the Covenant of Works, and we have already
sinned. So the Covenant of Works can’t bless you if you have sinned. The
condition of the Covenant of Works is perfect and personal obedience. So
it remains in force as a binding obligation, but we are incapable of
fulfilling it. We are born in sin, the Apostle Paul says, and are by nature
children of wrath. But the fact that it is still in force explains why both
Jesus and Paul argue against legalism, not by saying that it is wrong in
principle for someone to think that they can earn their salvation.

Now, notice how Jesus and Paul will use the same polemic. When the
Judaizers come to Paul and say you have got to get it by your works, Paul
doesn’t say no, you can’t do it, you’ve got to do it by grace. That is not
what Paul says. Paul’s response is always, “He who shall live by it shall
do it.” In other words, he says, “do this and live.” He is saying, “Okay,
you think you can stand before God righteously in your own merit. Fine.
If you can, He will welcome you into the kingdom of heaven. Go ahead
and do it.” The apostle Paul’s argument is not that it is illegitimate to
think that perfect obedience is acceptable to God. The Apostle Paul’s
argument is that you can’t do personal obedience. You cannot do perfect
and personal obedience. You are fallen. You sin in thought and word
and deed everyday. So if you think you are going to stand before God in
righteousness that way, fine. Do it. That is Paul’s argument, and that is
Jesus’ argument against legalism. So the Covenant of Works stays in
force in the sense that both Paul and Jesus can use that argument. Yeah,
you can be perfect. You can stand before God and be accepted in heaven.
That’s all you have to do: be perfect. “If anyone,” Macleod says, you will
see at the bottom of page 215, “If anyone could present himself at the bar
of God and prove that he was free from sin, personal or imputed, actual
or original, he would be acquitted.” That is all you have to do. I am free
from sin, let me in Lord. Because the principle, “The soul that sins shall
die” is still valid. So the opposite of that is also valid. The soul that does
not sin, shall not die. So if you have not sinned, you are doing great.

Why is salvation by works impossible? Not because it is inconceivable

but because we are morally corrupted and totally depraved. Salvation by
works is not a metaphysical impossibility. It is a moral impossibility. We
are rebellious human beings fallen in Adam. And we have no hope for
moral capacity to obey fully the law of God.
The Condition of the Covenant of Works
Why is it called the Covenant of Works? Because the condition of the
covenant is the obedience of Adam.

2. The Covenant of Redemption.

The phrase, The Covenant of Redemption (and I am not speaking of
Robertson’s Covenant of Redemption, no), historically in the Reformed
tradition refers to the intertrinitarian covenant, especially the covenant
between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. It
took place in eternity and is the plan by which election would be elective.
Berkhof defines it this way, “the Covenant of Redemption is the
agreement between the Father giving the Son as head and redeemer of all
the elect and the Son voluntarily taking the place of those whom the
Father has given Him.” And so the Father, foreseeing the fall, in His
grace effects a covenant with the Son in which He gives all the elect to the
Son and the Son says I will take their place. Now where in the world did
the Covenant Theologians get this? Well, we are going to look at this very
closely later on. But let’s look at some of the outline.

First of all, they found it in the Messianic Psalms—Psalm 2:7-9—

where we have a picture of God speaking to the king: “I will surely tell of
the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have
begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine
inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession. Thou shalt
break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.’”

Now in that Messianic Psalm (and by the way, that is a Psalm and that
is a passage in that Psalm that is directly identified as messianic in the
New Testament; we’re not doing this by implication; it is directly quoted
as a Messianic Psalm in reference to Christ, so there is no speculation
involved here), the Covenant Theologians say, “What is happening
there?” God the Father is giving to the Son the nations as His inheritance
and is appointing the Son in that phrase, “Thou art My Son, this day I
have begotten Thee.” That doesn’t mean that Christ is coming into being
that day. That is the language of the royal enthronement. “Thou art the
Son, today I have begotten Thee.” It is as if the king of Israel has just
ascended the throne now. And the Father is saying I have appointed you
now as the monarch over all your inheritance, all the chosen people. And
so the Son takes the role of Mediator and of head. You see this also in
Psalm 40:7-9 which is another royal Psalm. You see it in Psalm 89:3 and
again it is picked up in Hebrews 10:5-7 and elsewhere, applied to Christ.

The Covenant Theologians also noticed that in the Gospels Christ

emphasizes that the Father had given Him work to do. The language in
John 5:36 is interesting, isn’t it? The Father gave Me a work to do. And
so elsewhere in the Gospels, Matthew and Mark, you will find Jesus
saying things like, “It is my food to do the will of Him who sent Me.”
Over and over we see the Son openly subordinating His will to the
Father’s will. A classic example is in the Garden of Gethsemane,
“Nevertheless, not My will, but Thy will be done.” And the Covenant
Theologian basically pulls back from that and says, “Wait a second, we’re
Orthodox Trinitarian Christians, we believe that the Son is very God, a
very God. He is equal in power and glory with God the Father. What is
the Son doing saying, ‘nevertheless not My will, but Thy will be done?’”
He is referring to the obligations of the covenant which He voluntarily
took on Himself in order to save His people. And the Father said, “Son, if
you are going to be the surety of Your people, this is what You must do.”
And the Son says to the Father, “That is what I want to do, Father, so that
You will be glorified and that they will be saved.” Now we will build a
foundation for this as we go through it.

Theologians have quibbled over whether to call this a covenant.

Okay. All Reformed Theologians believe in a decree. They believe that
there is a plan that God has instituted from eternity for the saving of His
people. Covenant Theologians simply say, “You really can’t understand
that decree, especially as it regards to our redemption, until you
understand the covenant aspect of it.” And the covenant aspect is the
Covenant of Redemption. It is that eternal covenant--that covenant
which is prior to time, in which the Son undertakes to be our surety and
our mediator and the Father undertakes to give to the Son all the elect
because of the Son’s perfect obedience.

Hear that clearly. In the Covenant of Redemption, the Son buys you
by right. You hear that? Last week we said the whole function of
Covenant Theology is to do what? Build the assurance of God’s people in
His promises. Now the Covenant of Redemption tells you that when
Christ dies for you, it makes your salvation absolutely certain. Why?
Because the Father has promised the Son, “If you will take that
man’s place, I will give him to You.” The whole point is that the
Father cannot renege. He has promised the Son in the Covenant. So
there we have the Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Redemption.

3. The Covenant of Grace

The Covenant of Grace is the overflowing of the Covenant of Redemption
in time after the fall. Adam miserably failed as the federal head in
Genesis 3 and so God acts for the first time in a manner of grace towards
humanity. And it is so important for you to understand that strictly
speaking here, that grace does not exist where there is no sin. Hear me
very clearly. We are going to hammer this one home over and over.
There is no such thing as grace where there is no sin. Sin is always prior
to grace. We may say that God was loving and that He was good in His
entering into the covenant relationship with Adam in the Garden, and we
would not be understating ourselves. But strictly speaking, Adam was
not related to on the basis of grace, because grace entails God’s blessing
despite demerit. And there was no demerit in Adam. There was no
demerit to overcome. There was no gulf of sin between God and Adam as
he was originally created. Grace comes in where demerit has entered into
the scene.

Question: “On the Covenant of Works, you called it a relationship

initiated by God?”

Thank you. You caught me and I was trying to keep from using that
word. Let me say that people will argue, “Can you say that the Covenant
of Works is gracious?” As long as you understand that strictly speaking,
grace does not exist prior to the fall in terms of God’s relationship with
man. If you are using gracious in a less technical sense to express God’s
goodness and His love and the unmerited aspect of that relationship
too, I have no quibble with it.

But it is so important for us to recognize that grace is not operative in

that first relationship, because God does not give us to Jesus as our
Mediator by the vehicle of grace. Jesus earns us. The whole vocabulary
of redemption, is the vocabulary of the marketplace. When you say the
phrase, “Jesus redeemed me,” we could translate that, “Jesus went to the
market and bought me.” Now that puts a whole different spin on it.
Christ isn’t given you by grace. The Father does not give you to the Son
by grace. He gives you to the Son because the Son has earned you. He
has bought you. He has purchased you. You see the whole purpose of
that language there is to make you understand how absolutely secure
your salvation is. The very justice of God would have to be violated for
your salvation to be lost once you are in Christ.

Now, the Covenant of Grace is that covenant between God and the
elect as they are in Christ. It is the overflowing of the Covenant of
Redemption into our human history after the fall. It is inaugurated in
Genesis 3 with Adam, and especially in the word of curse against the
serpent in Genesis 3:15, and it is expanded in the covenant with Noah. It
is most clearly set forth in the Old Testament in the Covenant of
Abraham. But it is continued in the covenants with Moses and with
David. It is prophesied of in its fullest form in Jeremiah in the New
Covenant and, of course, it comes to realization in the New Covenant
itself inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

Now the Covenant of Grace, Robertson calls this what? Let’s not get
these things confused. Robertson calls it the Covenant of Redemption.
And he is not talking about this covenant. In fact, Robertson stays away
from talking about that intertrinitarian covenant at all. Okay. So
Robertson will use the word Covenant of Redemption when he is
actually talking about this end time covenant, the Covenant of Grace.
And he will use the phrase, Covenant of Creation when he is talking
about the Covenant of Works. The Confession will use Covenant of
Works, Covenant of Grace, or Covenant of Life, Covenant of Grace.
Robertson uses Covenant of Creation and Covenant of Redemption.
Those are Meredith Kline’s terms. Robertson is following Meredith
Kline’s terminology there, for those of you who care about that particular
discussion.

Question: “Robertson is arguing that a covenant is something in blood.”

Right. Yes. I suspect, having taken Robertson for Biblical Theology, I

suspect that his biggest hang up about talking about the Covenant of
Redemption is in the issue of covenants being asymmetrical. He sees
biblical covenants as always entailing a greater and lesser party with
regards to God’s involvements. And I would not quibble with His specific
examples of that. God and Adam, God and Noah, God and Abraham, God
and David. Obviously, if you have got God and man in a covenant
arrangement, it is going to asymmetrical. God is going to be sovereignly
in charge.

And so he is saying, “How can you talk about an arrangement like that
that as intertrinitarian, between equal persons of the Trinity?” Well, it is
because all covenants are not asymmetrical and you have got biblical
examples of non-asymmetrical covenants, so I think you also have to add
into that the voluntary subordination of the Son. You know, there is a
legitimate kind of subordinationism. It is not ontological subordination.
It is economical subordination. And economic subordination in a
covenant. I think that is his biggest hang up about the issue of using
covenant terminology about the intertrinitarian arrangement. But there
are lots of covenants between two equal parties. You know, Abraham and
Abimilech. David and Jonathan. Jacob and Laban. So with the blood
aspect of the covenant, there is clearly still a life and death thing going on
there. It is not dissimilar to what happens in Genesis 15, when God walks
between the pieces in the form of a smoking oven and the flaming torch.
You have got a situation there where God Himself is calling down self-
malediction. So I think you could satisfy him at the level of blood. I think
it is just that subordination issue that he is wrestling with, and I think
there is a biblical answer to that, that is in fact, absolutely essential.

You know what I mean when I say ontological subordination and

economic subordination? Ontological subordination would say that the
Son is in His essence, in His being, in some sense, less than or derivative
than the Father. There are some people who believe in the doctrine of the
Trinity but sort of see the Trinity as sort of a hierarchy. You know, you
have either got the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, and the Son is a
little less than the Father, and the Father is the original fountain, and
then the Spirit is something else. Or some people see the Trinity, “Well
you know you have got three thrones, and the Father’s is the biggest, and
you know then you have the Son’s out there, and then you have got the
Spirit’s over there. And they all sit on their thrones, but the Father’s
throne is the biggest throne.” And that would be a form of
subordinationism, to see the Son and the Spirit as somehow less in
substance or essence than the Father.

But economic subordinationism speaks of that voluntary willingness

to be made nothing, to take on the form of a servant, to be the covenant
mediator, which is spoken about all through the New Testament. And it
is not an emptying of His essence. In fact, Paul makes that so beautifully
clear in Phillipians 2 when he says, that “He emptied Himself, taking the
form of a servant.” You see it is not an emptying of essence that is
involved in Phillipians 2. It is the taking on of humanity and, specifically,
taking on the role of mediator for humanity which is the subordination
that the Son undertakes for us. And He talks about it all the time. This is
one of the reasons why many heretics go to the New Testament, to the
Gospels, and to Acts, and to the Epistles, and end up saying, “Well Jesus
can’t really be fully God in the way that God the Father is because look at
this language. You know, look at this language, ‘not My will, but Thy
will.’ You see, Jesus clearly thinks the Father is greater than He is.” And
a Covenant Theologian comes along and says, “No, no, you totally
misunderstand. Jesus is speaking covenantally there. He is saying,
‘Brethren, before the foundation of the world, I loved you with my heart
and therefore, I said to the Father, ‘I want to take that man’s place. And I
will submit My will to Your will to effect the redemption by covenant of
that people.’”

And so all that language of subordination in the New Testament

suddenly becomes intelligible from the standpoint of the covenant. And
it is not because the Son ontologically, in His essence, in his being is less
than the Father. It is because the Son has voluntarily said, “I want to take
that man’s place.” And Paul’s language helps us so much there. Over and
over, “in our place,” “for us,” “on our behalf,” all those wonderful little
phrases. Over an over, and what is that language? That is the language of
covenant mediation.

Question: “Where did Systematic Theology get its origins?”

Historically, Systematic Theology was being done by the late second

century, early third century. Typically we say that Origen’s First
Principles was the first attempt at a Systematic Theology that still stands.
But I would argue that even before that you would have at least attempts
by early writers at systematizing particular doctrines. So in terms of
Christian history, you see it very early on, especially for the purpose of
catechizing, of teaching those who are coming to the church to join as
catechumens. And it is argued by New Testament scholars who would
know better than I would, that some of the Gospels, and in particular
Matthew itself, are organized for the purpose of memorizing, for the sake
of instructing the catechumens.

The Covenant of Works

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to open with me to Genesis 1.
We read the passage last week, and we will look at it again. In Genesis 1
we will focus on verse 24 and following.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind:
cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it
was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the
cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its
kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God
created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to
them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living
thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you
every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every
tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every
beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that
moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for
food”; and it was so. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it
was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth
day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and
He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested
from all His work which God had created and made.

Thus ends this reading of God’s holy and inspired Word, may He add
His blessing to it. Let’s look to Him now in prayer.

Our Father we thank You for this Word, and as we begin to study it,
concentrating on the truth of the covenant contained therein, we pray
that our eyes would be opened that we would have a clear
understanding of the truth of Your Word, that we would be captivated
by the glory of that truth and that we would be better enabled to
communicate that truth to others. We ask these things in Jesus’ name.
Amen.

The Exegetical Basis of the Covenant of Works

I want to begin today looking with you at the exegetical basis of the
Covenant of Works. And that means of course, concentrating closely on
Genesis 1 and 2. There is a sense in which Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:
3 serves as a preface for the covenantal formulation of Genesis 2:4 –
Genesis 2:17 or 24, however you want to divide it. Liberals used to make
much about these supposedly two alternative and contradictory
creational accounts. I trust that all of us understand that nobody could
possibly be so bad an editor, to accidentally, unwittingly put two
creational accounts which were in fact alternative and contradictory side
by side and leave them in the book that he had edited. And certainly no
one as talented as the person who edited Genesis clearly is. So
understand that there is a theological, as well as a literary agenda, for
placing these two accounts side by side.

And as you see the first so-called account of creation from Genesis 1:1
running to Genesis 2:3, it is clear that the focus is to put man in context
in God’s original created order. And then beginning in Genesis 2:4 there
will be significantly more concentration on the nature of the relationship
between God and man. In fact, themes that are introduced in Genesis 1:1
– 2:3 will be taken up again in Genesis 2:4 and following and amplified.
So there is every sign of literary and theological connection between these
two accounts. They are not placed here in a haphazard way. They are not
placed here in an irresponsible way theologically. They logically and
theologically build on one another.

Now having said that as we look at the creation account itself, it is very
apparent that the culmination of this account is in the sixth day. And that
is not just because the sixth day is the last of the creative days. It is
because in that day, the announcement of the creation of man in the
image of God is made and we read enough of that sixth day account
beginning in verse 24 to give you the literary feel for the language that
has already been used. Notice what God stresses in verse 24, “let the
earth bring forth creatures after their kind.” So it is stressed that
creatures after their kind, after their genus, after their species are from
henceforth and forever going to be brought forth. It is stressed that cattle
and creeping things and beasts all will be produced. How? After their
kind. In the likeness of the genus in which they were originally created
and then it is stressed again in verse 25: God made the beasts of the earth
after their kind. The cattle after their kind. Everything that creeps on the
ground after its kind and God saw that it was good. And so His original
creation is good but He is making things according to their kind.

And then there comes this monumental announcement in verse 26,

and that announcement is what? “Then God said, let us make man in Our
image” and you see immediately the contrast between the beasts being
made after their kind and man being made after God’s image. And so we
can remember, some of us, who heard Nigel Cameron preach back in the
spring at First Presbyterian Church, tremblingly he said, “We may say
reverently that whereas the beasts of the earth are made after their kind,
man is of the genus of God.” Now, that is a shocking way of putting it and
we don’t want to stress that in some sort of a Kenneth Hagan way—we are
“little gods” theologically—but recognize what is being said about man
here. Man is of an altogether different order and you see immediately a
fundamental and unresolvable clash between a biblical anthropology and
a secular evolutionary anthropology which says we are of the same basic
stuff as the animal world. We are simply a more highly evolved animal.
And in bold and in direct refutation and confrontation with that kind of
view, the Bible says “No, human beings are not of the same kind, or
species or genus as the animal creation. They are a unique creation of
God, uniquely created by Him to bear His image.” And so you can see
even looking at verses 24 and 25 and 26, this chasm that is being put
between man and the animal creation by the Lord in His Word, and the
exalted position. So everything has been building to this moment to
explain to man the place that he has in the universe. And so as we look at
this passage together, especially from verse 26 on down, I want to make
clear what it means for man to be made in the image of God. And then
we will move on to explain a little bit in detail about the nature of the
relationship that man has with God. We will get into a little of that as we
look at this passage, but it will be expanded when we look at Genesis 2:4
and following.

First of all, notice as we have already mentioned, that man is distinct

from the animal creation. Five times it is said that the animals are made
after their kind, in verses 24 and 25. But in verse 26 it is explicitly said
that man is “in Our image according to Our likeness” and this is the Lord
speaking. This is the triune God speaking, saying, “I am creating
humankind in My image, in My likeness.” Man is unique. It is not that
he is simply smarter than the animals. It is not because he is simply more
highly evolved than the animals. He is of an altogether different genus.

Now I know of no better place in a postmodern world for you to begin

an apologetic encounter witnessing to the truth of the Gospel than that,
because human beings feel less significant today than ever before. Now
they are puffed up with pride, but deep down inside they feel an
incredible lack of significance because of the worldview that they have by
and large adopted. It is a worldview that has reduced them to the status
of some sort of an evolved being in a universe that does not care about
them, because that universe is non-personal. And I know no better place
to engage this culture than right at that point and to say, as far as
Christianity is concerned, we are not a human animal as some
anthropologists like to put it. We are not a human animal. We are
uniquely endowed with certain divine attributes by the Lord Himself.
And you know, if the Lord Himself hadn’t said it, you would find it hard
to believe. You really would. You would wonder if it wasn’t just a little bit
blasphemous if the Lord Himself hadn’t said it.

But again, do you not see the incredible goodness of God in creation in
that very thing? He didn’t have to do that. Just this lavish goodness of
God, saying, I am going to take this creation that I have made out of the
dust and I am going to exalt this creation. And I am going to make this
creation vice-ruler of the world, and I am going to endow this creation
with My own attributes so that he is like Me. Unbelievable.

Notice also, that we see in verses 26 and in 28 that man is endowed

with a capacity for, and a responsibility for, dominion or rule. Man is
endowed with a capacity for, and a responsibility for, dominion or rule.
You again see that language in verse 26: “Let them rule.” And then again
in verse 28: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and rule.”
So there is a stress or an activity of government and ordering that implies
that the man has both rationality and righteousness because, in God’s
world, the function of ordering isn’t just the job for a good administrator;
it is a job for someone who has rational capacities which bear and reflect
the image of God and is righteous. It is a moral function here. Ordering
the earth is a moral issue. You can’t order the earth from an immoral
base.

And so the very fact that man is being called to rule reminds one of the
rational and the righteous aspects in which he bears God’s image. This
aspect of God’s image, this aspect of rule or dominion is stressed in the
divine command of Genesis 1:28, “subdue it and rule.” And it is also
stressed in the declaration of verses 29 and 30. If you look down at those
passages, the implication of this particular command is clearly set forth
there with regard to the sphere of their responsibility and dominion. By
the way, we are going to stress this when we look at the life of Noah, but if
you flip over to Genesis 9:2-3, this same rule is reiterated in Genesis 9 to
Noah. “The fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the
earth and on every bird of the sky with everything that creeps on the
ground and all the fish of the sea into your hand, they are given. Every
moving thing that is alive shall be food for you. I give all to you as I gave
the green plant.” Again the same order is obtained in redemption that
had been established in creation. When God sets forth His redemptive
covenant in the life of Noah, He restores the order and ordinances that
He has originally given in the Garden before Adam fell. Now by the way,
this is precisely the thing that is celebrated in Psalm 8:4 and following,
“What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man,
that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than
God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to
rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the
heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the
seas.”

It is telling, isn’t it, that the author of Psalm 8 begins with a reflection
on the heavens and he has got to have Genesis 1 either before him or very
much in his mind as he does this. Because in Genesis 1 what you are
overwhelmed by is this God who is so massive as to speak the heavens
into being. And you go on for a couple of verses there in Genesis 1 about
God making the sun and the moon, and then in that little throw-off
phrase in verse 16, you get “He made the stars also.” He made the stars
also. How many billions of stars are there? Yet He so awesome, so
powerful, so mighty, that in a little phrase, two or three words in Hebrew,
He made the stars also. And anybody in their right mind as a human is
overwhelmed by that spectacle. You are looking up there at the night
sky. If you are out deep into the dark woods, maybe you can see 1500 or
more stars with the naked eye on a clear night. And it is overwhelming,
and you feel small and that is exactly how the Psalmist felt in Psalm 8.
What is man that you have crowned him with power and glory and given
him dominion and rule? That is exactly the response that Genesis 1 is
designed to evoke, but the fact of the matter is that Psalm 8 acknowledges
exactly what Genesis 1 says, that yes, you tiny little human being, you are
made in the image of God and you are made to rule that world. It is
mind-boggling. That is what it means to be in the image of God: to be
distinct from the animal creation and to be endowed with the capacity for
rule and that involves ordering in a rational and a righteous way.

Thirdly, however, it also means being a bearer of certain of God’s

attributes. To be made in the image of God, not only means to be distinct
from the animal creation, it not only means to be endowed with the
capacity for responsibility for rule, but it means to be a bearer of certain
of God’s attributes. And this is made clear by the analogy of Genesis 5
verses 1-3. If you would turn to that passage, notice the rehearsal of this
in the genealogy of Adam in the book of Adam. Genesis 5. “This is the
book of the generations of Adam in the day when God created man, He
made him in the likeness of God. He created them, male and female and
He blessed them and named them man in the day they were created.
When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of the son in his
own likeness according to his image and named him Seth,” and so it is
reiterated that man bears certain aspects of the very attributes of God.
His image. His likeness. Now these attributes are not spelled out in so
many words. There is not a nice listing of them, as much as we would like
to have that in the first two chapters of Genesis, but there is enough there
for us to put together a decent list. And we ought to look at that real
briefly.

The Attributes of God in Man

First of all, it is clear that as God is rational, so also is man. As God is
rational, so also is man. Now this is implicit of God. What I am calling
rationality is implicit of God in Genesis 1:1-25. There, God Himself is
seen to be rational. And all I mean by rational at this point—and I am not
trying to over stretch this—all I mean is having intelligence and will,
having the ability to formulate plans and execute them. That is very clear
from Genesis 1:1 and following, that God is that kind of God. He is a God
who plans and who carries out. He formulates the thoughts of His mind
and He carries them out by His divine will. He speaks those thoughts
into being. That is stressed in the very structure of the language that
Moses uses for the first six days. And man, too, is endowed with this kind
of rationality and knowledge and understanding and this is seen, for
instance, in Adam’s naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19-20.
Understand that that action of naming the animals in not only an exercise
of its rule. When an explorer explores and “finds” or “discovers” a new
country, what does that explorer usually get to do? Name it. When Adam
names the animals, that is a function of his rule, his dominion over them.
In other words, it is a divine signifier that God has put him in charge. He
is the one who gets to name the animals, not the other way around. So it
is a sign of his rational capacity.

But we must also recognize that there is every indication that Adam’s
naming of the animals is not arbitrary, but that the names that Adam
assigns to the animals are correspondent to their nature. Notice again
that in redemption, for instance, in passages like Colossians 3:9-10, this
aspect of the restoration of man’s true capacities for knowledge and
rationality are stressed. “Do not lie to one another,” Paul says, “since you
have laid aside the old self with its evil practices and have put on the new
self which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image
of the One who created him.” So the true knowledge that we possess as
redeemed is what? According to the image of the One who created us. So
that is true about Him and it is true about us. So part of being in the
image of God is that rational capacity, and man’s rationality is reflected in
his rule, his understanding is a gift of God.

That too, is a very important for our witness for our evangelism. If we
forget that the true knowledge of God is a gift, we may be tempted to
think that we can produce that true knowledge in someone. Only God
can bestow that. There are certain things that we are called to do and be
very faithful in our responsibility to carry those out in bearing witness.
But we must recognize that, ultimately, only God can bestow that kind of
true knowledge on a person. That is why we are prayerfully dependent
upon the work of the Holy Spirit in His grace.

2. Secondly, as God is personal, so also is man. And you cannot miss,

in the interaction from Genesis 1:26 on, that God as a personal being is
interacting with man as a personal being and even the hints that you get
in the language of 1:26, ‘’Let Us make man in our Own image,” hinting
perhaps not only at the majestic exalted position of God, speaking with a
Royal We, but perhaps even pressing forth to the doctrine of the Trinity
itself, reminds us that God Himself is in communion with Himself,
because He is both three and one. The Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are in communion and therefore God is personal. And it is
interesting, isn’t it, that it is stressed that man is personal as well, and
therefore has relational capacities. “Let us make man in Our image
according to Our likeness and let them rule.” So the male and the female
aspect of man is stressed from the very beginning and is seen as part and
parcel of His ability to convey the personalness of God. Thus the very
differentiation of the sexes, male and female, is part of the image of God
which we bear and reflect.

Now the implications of this are tremendous. I couldn’t possibly

begin to apply all the implications of that. One thing, however, does
come to mind again, in our society which is so vital, and that is the whole
issue of the homosexual movement. You understand that homosexuality
depersonalizes a human. It depersonalizes a human. It dehumanizes a
person because it denies the essential male-female sides of the human
marital relationship that are at the very core and foundation of the society
which God created in the original creation. It denies the essentialness of
that and it says, “No, male and male and female and female, same sex
unions are capable of functioning and reflecting the fullness of humanity
just as well as male-female relationships.” And we will talk more about
that perhaps at some other time. But the practice itself is a denial of the
scriptural teaching on man in the image of God.

3. Thirdly, we can also say that man is moral. Man is moral. That is
another of his attributes as an image-bearer. We are told in Genesis 1:31
that God made all things good. That is because, of course, He is good
Himself. “God saw all that He made and behold it was very
good,” Genesis 1:31. Man, too, is endowed with righteousness and
holiness. He knows what the good is. And again in redemption this is
stressed. In Ephesians 4:24, Paul will say, “Put on the new self which in
the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the
truth.” So Ephesians 4:24 says the new self has been created in the
likeness of God in righteousness and holiness of the truth, so this moral
aspect, this personal aspect, the rational aspect, all of these are part of
man as image bearer. So that is all a subset of what we are saying about
man as a bearer of certain of God’s own attributes. God is personal. God
is rational. God is moral. And we reflect His image in those. And we
could more than this, but we certainly can’t say less than this.

4. Fourthly, life is sacred. Now we move on to another aspect of what

it means to be made in the image of God. It not only means that we are
distinct from the animal creation, it not only means that we are endowed
with the capacity for dominion and rule, it not only means that we are the
bearers of certain of God’s attributes, it means fourthly that man’s life is
sacred because of the image and it must be treated so. This is stressed in
Genesis 9:5-6. In that passage, it is stressed that precisely because man is
in God’s image, capital punishment is required by capital crimes. The
argument is precise and this is so important to hear because you will hear
some advocates of anti-capital punishment legislation argue that they are
arguing their position on Christian grounds and they will argue
something like this: “Man is created in the image of God. Who are we to
take that life away from anyone, no matter what they have done, because
they are indelibly made in the image of God. How can we take the life of
someone?”

Now that is not God’s logic. God’s logic is recorded not only in
Genesis 9, but elsewhere. But in Genesis 9, His logic is this: Because man
is so special, because man is an image bearer, when a man violates the
principles of My law so grossly so as to take the life of another human
being, they have just purchased by that action, the inalienable right to pay
for that action with their own life. And to put it in the very language of
Genesis 9, we have a responsibility to bring to bear capital punishment
for capital crimes because of the image of God in man.

God’s argumentation is anything but a diminution of the sacredness of

man. And so in Genesis 9, we have this kind of argumentation: Anything
less than capital punishment for capital crimes dehumanizes man and
devalues his life.

By the way, that passage in Genesis 9 also reminds us that the image
of God was not lost at the Fall. If you have read any stuff as high powered
as Barthian anthropology, whether you are reading Barth’s Doctrine of
Man, or Bruner, or someone else, you will find the idea that man lost the
image of God at the Fall. That is not the historic Reformed doctrine of
man, and it is made clear in Genesis 9 that even after the Fall, though the
image is effaced, it is not erased. So Noah lives after the Fall, and still
God speaks of the image to him.

This, by the way, is the only adequate basis for the establishment of
basic human rights and respect. And again, friends, this is such an
excellent area for you to press in a postmodern society. We are “rights
crazy” in this society. We think that there is a right for everything. And
you can use that to your advantage because, the funny thing is, as these
rights have multiplied, the grounds, the foundations for these rights have
eroded because we do not live in a society which by and large believes in
transcendent truth anymore. People just believe that you kind of make it
up as you go along. There is no transcendent basis for truth. It is either
individually produced or it is societally agreed upon. But it is not
transcendentally and universally true.

But how can you have a right that is not transcendentally and
universally true? How can you have an inalienable right, if there is
nothing that is transcendentally true and essential about that particular
right? Well, when you hear people arguing for human rights, whether it
is in the context of race, or sex, or religion, or whatever else, you as a
Christian have a reason, and a good reason, and a ground on which you
can argue for certain basic elemental rights. And that ground and reason
is the doctrine of the image of God in man. We do not believe, as
believers, as Christians, that just because someone worships a false god,
that they cease to be in the image of God. And therefore, we have certain
basic responsibilities to them, even if they are idolaters. We are called, by
the Lord, to love them. We are called to respect them in certain ways.
And we are even called to defend their own elemental rights by the Lord
as a part of our responsibilities to Him.

But a modern or a postmodern non-Christian is in big trouble trying

to set forth a doctrine of why it would be wrong, for instance, for Hitler to
exterminate Jews. I mean, why not? I mean they were declared non-
persons weren’t they? What is wrong with that? And your doctrine of
man in the image of God gives you an incredible leverage because there
are people who, at a gut level, sense that there ought to be certain basic
human rights. They have perhaps expanded those rights too far and they
have perhaps not thought through why there ought to be those certain
things, but they have a gut hunch or instinct that there are these things.
But you are the only person who can supply them the ground of that
because this is God’s world and God’s world only works the way He made
it. It doesn’t work the way that other people make it up as they go along.
So again, here is a great launching point for a Gospel discussion with
someone. Do you believe in human rights? You do? Or, you don’t have a
reason to. I do. How is that for a starter? And I promise you that is a
good discussion to have.

One more thing. Let me mention this: We see here in Genesis 1, and
perhaps especially set forth in Genesis 2:7, that man is endowed with an
immortal, spiritual aspect to his being. This is seen not only in the
giving of the Tree of Life in the Garden, but it is even seen in the phrase of
Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the
ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became
a living being.” Genesis 1 and 2 speak of man as a personal, self-
conscious being with the capacities of knowledge and thought and action,
but he is a personal, self-conscious being with those capacities who goes
on forever. He was not made like the animals and the plant world to be
here today and gone tomorrow. He was made for eternity. And this is
another one of the aspects of his distinction from the animal world.

Now, we have glanced upon the obligations that the Lord gave in
Genesis 1:26 and following, but I want to go back and look at them in
more detail. We have defined covenant already in a couple of different
ways. We have mentioned Robertson’s description of the covenant: it is a
bond in blood sovereignly administered. Let me throw out another
definition of covenant. Robertson, himself, as you will remember, opens
the book by saying, “Defining a covenant is sort of like defining your
mother.” The dictionary definition sort of falls short. It is hard to give
one definition that includes everything that you need to say about a
covenant.

But here is one that I think will help you see the covenantal nature of
Genesis 1:26-31: A covenant is a binding relationship with blessings and
obligations. A covenant is a binding relationship with blessings and
obligations. Now that is not adequate in any way as a total, final
definition of “covenant,” but it certainly stresses at least a couple of
things doesn’t it? It stresses first of all that a covenant is a relationship.
It is a special kind of relationship. It is a binding relationship. And in a
religious context, of course, it is a saving relationship. Furthermore, it is
a relationship that involves both blessing and obligation, both promises
and responsibilities. And low and behold, as we look at Genesis 1:26 and
following, that is precisely the pattern we see there of the relationship
that is described between God and Adam.

Why am I mentioning this? Because you will have noticed that

nowhere in Genesis 1 and 2 is the term “covenant” used. In fact, that
term “covenant” will not occur until Genesis 6:18. But let me hint ahead
and steal my thunder a little bit ahead of time. It is very interesting that
there are two ways of speaking about the making of a covenant in the
Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament. One can speak of
making a covenant firm. Sometimes your translations translate that as
“establishing a covenant” and one way is to speak of “cutting a
covenant.” The one, the latter, the cutting of the covenant, often refers to
the inauguration of the covenant. The other phrase often refers to the
confirming of an already established covenant relationship, to make that
covenant firm. Is it not interesting to you that in Genesis 6:18, the
passage says that the covenant was made firm? Now that is the first
usage of “Covenant” in the Bible. But the very language forces you to
understand that there was a covenant before it was mentioned. And the
only question is, how far back did it go? Now we will look at that passage
in detail because that is important. But it is very important for us to
understand that the whole structure of the covenant of God with Noah
implies with massive force that it is a continuation of a previously
established relationship.

Now, I could show you other places in the Bible where the concept of
covenant is present and the term is not. For instance, in II Samuel 7, God
establishes His covenant relationship with King David, this glorious
culmination with David. And you remember the story. David sets out to
build a temple for the Lord and the Lord says, “David, don’t build Me a
temple.” And you remember there is a play on words there. David says,
“I am going to build a house for the Lord,” and the Lord comes back to
David and says, “David, will you build a house for Me? No, I will build a
house for you.” So there is a wonderful play on words in that passage that
we will look at very closely in a few weeks, but in the passage, the
covenant is established with King David.

Now how do we know a covenant is established there since the word

“covenant” is not mentioned? We know it two ways. First of all, know it
because of the contents of what is transacted between God and David in
II Samuel 7, even if we had no other reference explaining to us what was
going on there. The very contents of the chapter contain the elements of
a covenant. Secondly we know because Psalm 89 tells us it was a
covenant. So the Bible will look back and see II Samuel 7 as a covenant-
making event and Psalm 89 confirms that.

Now there are indications in the Scripture in various places, and we

will look at this at some point, that the relationship of Adam and God in
the Garden in covenantal. In other words, that actual terminology is
used. Hosea 6:7 is one of the classic passages that we will have to look at
in some greater detail, but there are other passages as well that give
indication of this covenant relationship.

What we are going to concentrate on today, however, is showing you

that the elements of the covenant are already here without any further
comment from Scripture. The elements of the covenant are here. First of
all, notice in verse 26 that God creates man in His own image and designs
him as the vice-ruler over His creation. And this verse reminds us that
man was created in God’s image and likeness and he was destined for
dominion over the remainder of creation. By the way, the uniqueness of
man is seen in the phraseology of 1:26. If you were to look at the other
creative days, for instance, Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:14, those
creative days begin with what phrase? “Let there be…” But Genesis 1:26
begins with what? “Let Us make….” So again, the uniqueness of man in
the creative order is expressed by Moses even linguistically; even
linguistically he is distinguishing man from the rest of God’s creation.

Now let me say in regard to Genesis 1:26 and man as ruler and man as
image, there is both a dynamic and a static element to the image of God.
How can I put that in more understandable language? There is both an
aspect of the image that is inherent in us as we are made as persons and
there is an aspect of the image that is expressed in us as we act. In other
words, we both are the image of God and we express the image of God in
our actions. Both of those aspects of the image are present there in
Genesis 1:26. We are in His image and we must reflect that image in our
actions.
 Secondly, in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28, we see that God established
certain blessings and obligations for man at the very outset of his
relationship with man. So we see a unique relationship established
between God and man in Genesis 1:26. God endows man with something
that He has not endowed any other part of His creation with. He endows
him with a responsibility that He has not given to any other part of His
creation. And then, in verses 27 and 28, we see both blessings and
obligations attached to that particular relationship from the very outset.
So here we have a relationship with attendant blessings and obligations.

There are four great obligations in that relationship. Perhaps I

should put it this way: There are at least four great obligations in that
original relationship, and, ironically, corresponding to those four great
obligations are four great blessings. So the blessings and the obligations
of this relationship in Genesis 1:26 and following are coordinated. The
blessings come in the obligation, the obligation comes in the blessing. It
is interesting how God tied that together. It reminds us, doesn’t it, that
the way of blessedness, or the way of happiness, is in the way of duty,
because in the very created order, God made duty and the doing of duty
to be blessed. Now that is such an alien concept to our culture. We tend
to think that if you have to do something, that kind of ruins it. If you
have to do it, how can you really desire to do that? Isn’t that against
grace or something like that? But the idea that duty is opposed to grace is
utterly alien to biblical thought. It is alien to Moses. It is alien to Paul. It
is alien to Jesus. Some of you may know of Robert E. Lee’s famous quote,
“Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.” It is up on a plaque
in The Citadel. If you have ever been to The Citadel, the military
university of South Carolina, you will see it on the walls as you walk in.
“Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.” And that idea is
totally alien to our culture, because duty is confused with “I have to do
it.” But here we see in the very duties of the created order, the blessings
are intertwined, so that as man does what God created him to do,
interestingly enough, he finds his fulfillment and his satisfaction and his
happiness and his blessedness.

The Creation Ordinances

What is meant by a creation ordinance? By a creation ordinance, we
mean a pattern of responsibility woven into the very fabric of the creation
by God as He originally made it. A pattern of responsibility woven into
the very fabric of creation as He originally created it. If you have read
John Murray’s Principles of Conduct, Murray comes up with seven
creation ordinances. Perhaps most frequently we hear of three creation
ordinances. I am not so concerned about the numbering as I am of us
grasping the concepts of these creation ordinances.

1. The first creation ordinance that we see there is the ordinance of

procreation. Genesis 1:28. The ordinance of procreation. “Be fruitful
and multiply and fill the earth.” This is the first of the creation
ordinances given in Genesis 1 and, of course, it is related directly to
marriage as we will see when we finally get over to Genesis 2:23-24. And
it is obviously essential for the fulfillment of the later mandates of labor
and dominion. Adam and Eve as two isolated individuals, no matter how
powerful in their capacities as unfallen human beings, can’t subdue the
whole of this globe. There has got to be procreation in order to harness
and order the world as God has established it. And this ordinance, it is
made clear in Genesis 1 and 2, was to be expressed only within the bonds
of mutual commitment, that is, marriage. So this is an obligation and a
blessing. It is an obligation and a blessing. Can you imagine God coming
to Adam, and Adam responding, “Do I have to?” “Yes. It is an obligation
and a blessing. Be fruitful and multiply.” And there again you see it is a
blessing to Adam as a family. Adam needs sons and daughters to help
him in the work that he has to do. And so it serves as a familial blessing
for his family as a whole, as well as something essential to the fulfillment
of the mandates for labor and dominion.

2. The second ordinance that we see, we also see in verse 1:28, and
that is the ordinance of labor. The ordinance of labor. “Fill the earth
and subdue it and rule.” Now notice the two parts of this ordinance. The
mandate is to work. The blessing is that God has given man rule. He is
mandated to work, but God has set up the creation so that the lower
creation fears man, respects his position of authority, and this dominion
mandate expresses itself necessarily in work or labor and thus, work is
good. Work is part of the original created order. When we go to heaven,
we are not going to heaven either on flowery beds of ease or for flowery
beds of ease. There will be work in heaven. That is what we were
originally created for. There will be no toil. There will be no frustration.
There will be no tiredness. But there will be fulfilling work. The
dominion of man was to be expressed in two spheres. You see it in this
passage, first in the subduing of the earth and second in the ruling over
the animals.

And let me go on to say that this labor ordinance was implicit even in
the Sabbath ordinance of Genesis 2:1-3, because what does the Sabbath
ordinance do? It puts a limit on labor. It says to man, you can’t work all
the time. But it implies the obligation of work on the other six days. So,
what are man’s obligations? Procreation. Labor. He is to express
dominion. How is blessing entailed in his labor? Not only in the
satisfaction of that labor, but also in the dominion that God has given
him, the rule that God has given him over his creation.

3. Then, the ordinance of the Sabbath. We see this in Genesis

2:3: “God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it.” This seventh day is
marked by the completion of God’s special created work; His labor was
finished in the first six days. The work of creation as such is done. That
doesn’t mean that He is inactive. He continues to work in providence in
preserving and governing His creation, but the same word, finished, is
used here as it is used of Moses finishing the tabernacle in Exodus 40:23,
and of Solomon finishing the temple in II Chronicles 7:11, and of Jesus
finishing the redemption in John 19:33. The same concept used here—
same term.

Notice also that these labors which are rested from are the creational
labors. God’s finished work of creation is sealed with these words, “He
rested.” And what is being implied is cessation from that special
creational activity. As we said, that doesn’t mean that God is inactive; He
continues to nurture, and that is seen from the following.

First, we see it from our Lord’s constructive use of the Sabbath. The
Pharisees’ Sabbath was by and large merely a negative Sabbath entailing
cessation from certain activities, whereas the Lord’s Sabbath was actively
a Sabbath of deeds of mercy and necessity in addition to worship. For an
example, see John 5:15-17: “The man went away, and told the Jews that it
was Jesus who had made him well. And for this reason the Jews were
persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.
But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am
working.’” So he indicates that God’s cessation from the creational
activity doesn’t mean that God is utterly inactive on the Sabbath. It just
means that the focus of that activity has changed.

Second, Jesus’ preservation of the creational pattern of the Sabbath.

And what is that creational pattern, that the Sabbath is both blessed and
holy. It is both a blessing and something to be set apart. Both of those
aspects. And once again, here we are seeing how the creation ordinance
of the Sabbath is both an obligation and a blessing. The original Sabbath
was both a blessing and an obligation. Notice Jesus’ words of it, about it
in Mark 2:27-28. “And He was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Notice what is being stressed there: that man was given the Sabbath as
a blessing. Man wasn’t created for the sake of the Sabbath. The Sabbath
was created for the sake of man. It was for his good. It was a blessing of
God to him. And what is the other side of it? So the Son of Man is Lord
even of the Sabbath. It is the Lord’s day. We have an obligation to the
Lord that day to follow in His way with worship, deeds of mercy and
necessity, just as He observed that day. So we see that pattern of blessing
and hallowing, of blessing and obligation, of blessing in responsibility
upheld in Jesus’ explanation of the Sabbath in Mark 2.

Then, finally, as we saw from Genesis and as we see again in Hebrews

3, God’s Sabbath was a gift to man. God’s Sabbath was a gift to man.
God didn’t need that rest. That is Jesus’ whole point in Mark 2. God
didn’t need the rest. He rested because you needed the rest. So His very
resting was not a necessity for Him. It was something that you needed
that He did out of His love for you. So He rested for your sakes, and we
learn in Hebrews 3:7-4:11 that, for believers, the Sabbath is not only a
blessing, but it is a promise of a rest to come. So the Sabbath is a day for
nurturing, for spiritual life, for worship and service.

In the third verse of Genesis 2, we learn that the Sabbath is set apart
and specially favored by God because of His rest from creation. “Then
God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because in it He rested
from all His work which God had created and made.” Because of His
resting, which He did for our benefit, God both favored and hallowed the
Sabbath. He blessed it and He made it holy. He blessed it in the sense
that He made it an effectual means of blessing to those who sanctify it by
rest, worship and service. And He sanctified it, in the sense of making it
holy or hallowed, whatever term you want to use, by consecrating it and
setting it apart for a holy use.

Now remember, friends, those who are hearing Genesis 1 read to them
for the first time, have already heard the Ten Commandments from God’s
own mouth. Remember that now. Those who are hearing Genesis 1 read
to them for the first time, have already heard the Ten Commandments
spoken to them from God’s own mouth. So Moses is not telling them
about something new when he speaks about the Sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3,
he is not telling them about something that they have never heard of
before. He is telling them about something that they have already heard
of, but now he is telling them where it came from. The whole structure of
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a gigantic argument for the Sabbath. It is simply a
gigantic argument for the Sabbath by explaining to the people of God
where the Sabbath came from. And I think it is not surprising that the
Exodus emphasis on the Sabbath is specifically mirroring creation. It is
not until Deuteronomy that you get the redemptive significance of the
Sabbath stressed in the Ten Commandments as they are recorded there.
And so the Sabbath serves not only as a memorial of redemption, as we
see in Deuteronomy, but it serves as a memorial of creation. It is woven
into the very fabric of creation. So that is the third of the ordinances that
we see in Genesis 1:26-2:3.

4. The fourth ordinance that we will look at is the ordinance of

marriage. We not only have the ordinance of procreation, the
ordinance of labor, the ordinance of Sabbath, but there is also the
ordinance of marriage. And the ordinance of marriage is seen in Genesis
2:24-25. And let’s think about that for a few minutes. It is made clear in
Genesis 2:18 that man had social needs even in paradise. Man had social
needs even in paradise. He has relational needs, human relational needs,
even in paradise. Genesis 2:18 says, “Then the LORD God said, "It is not
good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

So even with everything pronounced good, God announces that “it is

not good for man to be alone.” This is the first thing that has been
described in God’s creation as not good. It is the only thing that has been
described in God’s creation that is not good. It is not good for man to be
alone. So, solitary fellowship with God even in paradise is not God’s plan
for us. By the way, you see in that verse the seed for the doctrine of the
church as well. Solitary fellowship with God is not God’s plan. We need
one another and such a plan that invites believers into individual
experiences with the Lord apart from mutual relations and obligations
with the body of believers ignores this basic creational human need for
companionship.

Secondly, as God calls Adam to name the animals in Genesis 2:19-20,

God makes Adam more aware for his need for this companionship. As we
have said before, the naming of those animals demonstrates that man is
the monarch of all he surveys under God, but it also reminds Adam that
there is no one out there for him, like him. He needs a helper suitable to
him, a perfect fit, a support, and an honored mutual companion. Genesis
2:21-23 record God’s provision for this need, and man’s grateful
acknowledgment of that provision to God. God creates a companion for
Adam because there was none for him before. Woman is made for him.
Eve is made to be Adam’s crown and glory and man stands in need of
her. It is perhaps significant that Adam was asleep when she was created
and so he can take no credit for her creation, for her provision, for
nature. He contributed nothing to her, except the stuff which God had
already given to him.

And then in Genesis 2:23-24, God in his special creative providence

establishes the very foundations of marriage. And here we see the
creation ordinance of marriage. “For this reason a man shall leave his
father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become
one flesh.” Now both Moses and Christ then, see this provision of Eve for
Adam as the very foundation of marriage. Jesus makes that clear in Mark
10:6-9 where He goes right back to this passage when the issue of divorce
is brought up by the Pharisees and He basically says to them, “You can’t
even begin to talk about divorce until you understand marriage first.”
And where does he take them? Right back to Genesis 2. And I think that
is important for us to remember because before we are able to reassert
marriage in our culture, we need to understand what it is. It is grounded
in this creational ordinance.

And then of course in verse 25, Moses reminds us that there was no
sin in this original order or relationship, and therefore, there was no
shame. They were naked, and they were not ashamed. No sin, no shame,
no barriers to relationships with one another. No barriers with
relationship to God. That need for covering was a result of the Fall. And
so this is the fourth of the ordinances. And again, the blessing of this
relationship is obvious. It is an ordinance, it is a mandate, but it is a
blessing. And so we see woven into Genesis 1, though the word is not
mentioned, we see a binding relationship with attendant blessings and
obligations. And the blessings are set forth even as the obligations are
being set out in Genesis 1:26-31.

The Covenant Established

Now with that as the background, with that as the preface, we see the
establishment of this covenant relationship in Genesis 2:4-25. First in
verses 4-14, I would like you to see the blessing of the Covenant of Works
set forth, the blessings of the Covenant of Works. God’s original covenant
with man was filled with privileges. And Moses gives you a sampling of
those privileges. First in verses 4-6, he gives you a brief reminder of what
the world was like before the creation was completed in the sixth days.
He gives you a synopsis of what the primordial world was like, what the
form, what the shape, what the visage of the world was like before God’s
completion of it. Why does he do that? Because he wants man to
appreciate that the form of the world which he experienced in the
paradise of Eden is not how the world was before God completed His six
days. It is this enormous, undeserved gift that God has given to man.
Even this paradisiacal surrounding that he has provided with Adam is a
gift of God to him. And God wants Adam to know what the world was
like before He finished working on it. It would be like taking him into a
garden and saying, “Now Adam, I want you to understand this garden
was not always like this. Two years ago, it was a bed full of weeds, but
this is what I have done. And of course it is even more radical than that.
There was nothing here, and then there was a something here that was
disorganized, and now, I, the Divine Creator, have organized it and filled
it and blessed it and made it fruitful and I have given it to you.” So the
first thing that we see in these verses is that the paradise of Eden was
God’s gift to Adam. It was one of the blessings that God gave to Adam at
the very outset of the relationship.

In verses 7-9, Moses continues to meditate on the original

environment of Adam as he thinks about his origin. Notice those words,
“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. The
Lord God planted a garden toward the east in Eden and there He placed
the man whom He formed. Out of the ground, the Lord God caused to
grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food. The tree of
life in the midst of the garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” So
man is formed out of the ground. God breathes into him his own breath
and makes him a living soul and immortal being. He plants a garden. He
provides man for food. He places two trees in that garden which are
distinct from all the other trees. One of these trees is a sacrament. We’ll
talk about it in a moment. The other tree is a test. So again, God, having
created us from the dirt, blesses us with goodness.

Then in verses 10-14, we are reminded again of the blessing of this

original relationship. Man’s original environment is said to be perfect.
We have the description of the rivers that flowed out of Eden to water it.
We have a description of the natural resources of that land and what we
have is a picture of man’s original environment as extraordinarily rich in
resources, water, gold, precious stones. So in the first verses of Genesis 2,
especially from verse 4 down to verse 14, what we see are the blessings of
this original relationship set forth.

Then, as we continue on from verse 15 down to verse 17, we see the

responsibilities of this covenant relationship. “Then the Lord God took
the man and put him into the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it and keep it.
The Lord God commanded the man saying, ‘From any tree of the Garden
you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’”
So I want you to see here that in paradise, God has entered into a special
relationship with Adam. We see this in at least three ways. We see it in
the blessing of God’s image in Genesis 1:26-31, we see it in the provision
of the creation Sabbath, in Genesis 2:1-3, and we see it in the blessings of
the original creation given to Adam in Genesis 2:4-14. So in each of those
ways, God is showing us the kind of condescension, the kind of good and
blessed condescension that He is engaged in as He enters into this
relationship with Adam.

Now this relationship, of course, is undeserved in the strict sense.

And there is nothing about Adam that requires God to do this. But notice
also there is no demerit in Adam either. There is no demerit that needs to
be overcome in him. He is created. He is good. He is righteous. Just
because he is created, doesn’t mean that he deserves these blessings. God
gives them to him anyway.

As we said last week, we distinguished that kind of activity of God

from grace, simply because sin is not present here. Later when he shows
this kind of goodness in condescension, it will be grace-based. Why?
Because sin is present and grace is for the purpose of overcoming sin.
There is no demerit, there is no sin here to overcome. What God is doing
is not merited. Adam has not merited this. We use the phrase Covenant
of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the
fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation
of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant
contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. And here
in Genesis 2:15-17, the specific aspect of his obligation, that is, of not
eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is brought into sharp
focus.

Now that is not the only thing that Adam has to do in this
relationship. We have already seen four things that he is responsible to
do. He is responsible for procreation. He is responsible for labor. He is
responsible to hallow the Lord’s day and he is responsible to procreate in
the context of marriage. So those things are already established as
obligations. But the negative test and obligation of this original
relationship we see here in Genesis 2:17-18. Look at the nature of this
relationship.
 Let’s break it down for a few moments. We have already said first of
all that there are ordinances in this relationship. There are positive
ordinances. Procreation, labor, Sabbath, and marriage. So there are
obligations in the relationship. There are also prohibitions in the
relationship. We might put it this way: there are positive obligations—
there are things that he is supposed to do, and there are negative
obligations—there are things that he is not supposed to do. Specifically,
he is prohibited from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The Lord says, “From the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall
not eat.” So you have ordinances. Positive ordinances. Negative
ordinances. And you have a consequence spelled out. There is a penalty
given: In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. So what do we
have here? Well, we have a relationship divinely established between
God and Adam. So we have a bond. We have life and death
consequences in the penalty. So we have a bond in blood. And let me
also say that we have blessings implied in this relationship, not only in
the ordinances, but also in the presence of the tree of life, because that
tree of life reappears where? Not only in Ezekiel, but in Revelation. And
where is it? It is in the presence of God and the company of the
redeemed. And so it is a hint of what is in store for Adam, if he is faithful
in the keeping of the obligations.

And finally, we have these stipulations, these ordinances and

prohibitions sovereignly administered by God. And so we have all the
elements of a covenant, whether you want to define it as a bond in blood
sovereignly administered, or whether you want to define it as a binding
relationship with attendant blessings and responsibilities. All the
elements of a covenant are there. But the word isn’t found. Now this
made John Murray very nervous, and so he didn’t want to talk about a
Covenant of Works. He didn’t want to talk about Covenant of Creation.
He wanted to talk about this as the Adamic Administration. I am going to
come back and talk about those kind of reservations at a later point. But
let me just share with you a little bit of speculation and see if you can
follow this. Why would the term covenant not be found here, if it is so
important structurally to this argument, especially as seen in Paul in
Romans 5? Well, think about it for a moment. If a covenant was a Near
Eastern cultural convention, something that grew up in a Near Eastern
society as a way of expressing binding obligations and promises, could it
be that Moses was being careful not to read back the specific terminology
of a cultural convention prior to its appearance in human culture? Could
it be that by the time of Noahic covenants, the language, the concept of
that were well known in human culture in the Near East, but that prior to
that, the concept had not fully or adequately developed and that Moses,
precisely because he wants to be so faithful to the historical accounts that
he is giving, refrains from using the language of covenant although it is
entirely appropriate as a concept theologically to the situation? Could it
be that the fact that we don’t have the word there in Genesis 1-5 is simply
a testimony to Moses’ strict and particular and careful attention to
historical detail in his recounting of the original chapters of the life of
man? We will have to ask him when we get to heaven, because ultimately
we can’t give an answer to that question. But I think it may be interesting
if we view the covenant as a human convention that was common in the
ancient Near East. We know it was common in the third and in the
second millennium BC in the Near East. If we view that as a human
convention which God divinely chose to illustrate the nature of His
relationship to His people, it makes sense that Moses would have
refrained from using the terminology in the original order before that
convention had been developed in human culture. Because the minute
that God takes up the convention, things about it change, because it is not
like any other human agreement or relationship. But the concept is
clearly there. The elements are all there.

Why is this Covenant Important?

What is the significance of all this? Well, let me see if I can summarize
this for you for a few minutes. As we look at Genesis 1 and 2 in this
original covenant relationship, what is significant for us theologically
about that original relationship in the Covenant of Works? Well, let me
throw out about six things to you here. First, Genesis 1 and 2 give us in
no uncertain terms a clear picture of the Creator/creature distinction.
We know from Babylonian mythology that creation was often pictured as
god birthing the world into being, so that the world was considered to be
somehow part of god. This was sort of a Pantheistic notion. God is in the
world. The world is in god. They are all connected. And you can’t read
Genesis 1 and come away thinking that Moses has a hint of that kind of
thinking in the back of his mind, because first there is God, and then later
there is this world. And then as Moses explains how the world comes into
being, what does he say? God speaks it into being. It is created literally
by divine fiat. He decrees it into being. So there can be no idea of this
world somehow being part of Him and of Him being somehow part of this
world. This is a direct assault on all Pantheistic views of God: all views
that say that the world is god and god is the world, god is in those trees,
or god is in the grass.

Now the beautiful thing about that is it demythologizes the creation.

There is a reason why the rise of modern science occurred under the reign
of the Protestant understanding of the Creator/creature distinction. You
can’t go down the street and experiment on a tree that might be God, or a
demon for that matter. But a creation which God has brought into being,
and over which not only He is sovereign, but man is sovereign, can be
studied and harnessed and so the creation is demythologized so that it
can be studied. We can learn better how it works, so that we can enhance
certain aspects of productivity in creation.

Man’s exercise of dominion over the earth is another implication of

this Creator-creature distinction. Again, if I am scared that there might
be a demon spirit that is locally controlling an oak tree outside, I am
probably going to cut a wide path around the oak tree. But when I
understand properly that God is in dominion over His creation, then I
recognize that there is nothing, there is absolutely nothing that is out
from under His providential control. You have to love that beautiful story
about the Celtic missionary who winds up in the land of the Franks, and
the Franks tell him, “See that oak over there?” “Yep.” “That is the oak of
Thor.” “That oak?” “That is the oak of the god Thor. That one right over
there. That is Thor’s oak.” “Anybody got an ax?” And he heads right
over to it and he chops it down. What is he doing? He is saying, “I don’t
care what god you say is in charge of that oak. My God owns that oak.
And I will cut it down if I want to.” But the point was to show the
sovereignty of God over His creation. Creation is not invested with spirits
that are out of control of the living God. God is sovereign. He is distinct
from that creation. By the way, that doesn’t mean that man is reckless
with his treatment of creation. So often you have heard the charges, “Oh,
Christianity, it encourages horrible ecological practices. It encourages
people to exploit the environment.” Oh no. You see, we are not the
owners, we are just the stewards, we are just working in the vineyard.
One day, the Master’s coming back and we are going to have give account
for how we used His creation. And so in the very essence of the Christian
view of creation there is a rationale for appropriate environmental and
ecological concern, because this isn’t our house. It is His. He has given it
to us as stewards, and so we had better use it wisely and well. So there is
not exploitation implied in dominion. Because why? We are not our own
master. We are accountable to Him. By the way, if you have not read
Schaeffer on this, Schaeffer will give you lots of ammunition in precisely
this area. This is again a nice point of contact with our postmodern
culture where you can engage some people to think, because there a many
people who say, “Oh it is a traditional western, white Anglo-Saxon male
patriarchal system that is responsible for all the ecological and
environmental problems in the world today.” And you can say, “Well let’s
talk about that a little bit. Let me explain to you the Christian philosophy
of creation.”

2. There is a second thing that this original covenant in the structure

of Genesis 1 and 2 gives us. It emphasizes the cosmic or universalistic
concerns of God. It emphasizes the cosmic or universalistic concerns of
God. Now as we have already mentioned before, that is reemphasized in
the covenant with Noah and we will look at that later. It is important that
we understand that God is concerned with the whole created order, and
not just man, as expressed in Genesis 1 and 2, and this protects us from
misusing our particularistic doctrine of grace. Let me try and exegete
that. As evangelical believers, we may believe that God’s saving grace is
visited only upon those who embrace Him by faith. Now we may say
additionally, as Reformed evangelical believers, that it is visited only
upon those whom God has chosen, who are called. But whatever way, if
you’re an evangelical, you have a particularistic view of grace. You don’t
believe that everyone is being saved. You believe that only those who
trust on the Lord Jesus Christ are being redeemed. What protects you
from going to the extreme and denying God’s concern for non-redeemed
creation, and for non-redeemable creation? Well, there are a lot of things
in the Bible that protect you from that. One of the things that protect you
from that is the fact that in Genesis 1 and 2 we see clearly that God is
concerned for the totality of His creation. And the universalistic
implications of Genesis 1 and 2 counterbalance our particularistic
doctrine of grace by affirming God’s broader concerns for humanity.
How is that seen? These creation ordinances are just as important for
unbelievers as they are for believers. And we ought to work to see
unbelievers putting these creation ordinances into practice. It will be a
blessing to them and to society and it will in many cases be a gateway to
the Gospel. So the creation ordinances are not just for Christians.
Creation ordinances, they are for everybody.

3. Third, this original covenant expresses a relationship between God

and unfallen, pre-fallen man, which is not by grace. We mentioned this
earlier. What do I mean by that? I don’t mean that we deserved all the
things that God gave us in the original creation. That is not the point. I
don’t mean that we earned all the things that God gave us in the original
creation. I do mean, however, that because we were not estranged from
God as He originally created us, that this original relationship was
natural and without a mediator. I mean, you only need a mediator if
there is a fight. You only need a mediator if there is estrangement. You
only need a mediator if two sides are at odds.

Now why is that significant? It is going to be very important for you to

understand that this is the point at which Karl Barth’s critique of
Covenant Theology fails most dramatically. And unfortunately many
evangelicals have picked up on some of Barth’s ideas at this point and
have imported them unwittingly into their own Covenant Theology, so I
am quite keen for you to understand how Barth errs here. Barth wants to
argue that all, all of God’s dealings with man are by grace, and that all of
God’s dealings with man are through Christ, and that Christ’s mediation
is therefore not a post-fall office or function. It is an eternal function that
occurs prior to the fall in human experience. You hear what Barth is
saying there? He is saying that from the very beginning God had to relate
to man by grace and through Christ. And he basically says that the
reason was because of the finiteness of man. And unfortunately you see
here a category confusion between finiteness and sin. Now we are going
to talk about this in the next point. But I want to introduce it here.
 Basically (and Professor Barth would be bouncing off the ceiling if I
said this in his presence, and he would deny it up and down, but I think I
could prove it to you if you gave me enough time), Barth says that man’s
fundamental problem in relating to God is not sin, it is that he is man.
And in my opinion, and in the historic opinion of the church for two
thousand years, that is not the Bible’s view of man’s basic problem in
relationship to God. Notice that God has no problem interacting and
interrelating to Adam in an unmediated way in the Garden. Adam
understands Him. God talks to him. They walk together in the Garden in
the cool of the day. There are stipulations, obligations, relationships,
blessings, and no hint of a problem of God entering into a relationship
with Adam. But Barth wants to say that it is our very creatureliness that
separates us from God.

Now let me say one other thing to be very careful of. Calvin dabbles
with this idea. He dabbles with the idea that we always need a mediator,
not just because we are sinful, but because we are so vastly inferior to
God in our finiteness. And he would appeal to passages like Isaiah 6 and
the angels, the beings that surround the throne are doing what? Veiling
themselves as they cry, “Holy, holy, holy.” Now, were they sinful? No.
But they still had to veil themselves in the presence of God. And he will
sort of take that and run with that. But Calvin doesn’t use this concept
like Barth will use it. Now Barth will go back and he will read all of his
theology into Calvin, but he is miles away from what Calvin was trying to
do with this point. But I want you to understand that this is a key part of
Barth’s critique of Covenant Theology. He does not like the idea of a
Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Nature and
a Covenant of Grace, because he wants grace to be the only way that God
relates to man.

Barth’s major error with this is that it underemphasizes sin. You see,
Genesis 3 is where Moses is going when he writes Genesis 1 and 2. He
wants you to understand that things then were not like they are now.
And things are like they are now because of what happens in Genesis 3,
and therefore the very nature of the way that God relates to us has to be
different. And I do not think that there is any way that you can do justice
to the significance of Genesis 3 and man’s original sin if you say that
there has always simply been one Covenant of Grace from the very
beginning, and there is not a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of
Grace.

What we are beginning here is an argument for what is called a

bicovenantal structure as opposed to a monocovenantal structure of
creation and redemption. The bicovenantal structure of creation and
redemption says there is a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace,
or a Covenant of Nature, and a Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of
Nature is prior to sin and therefore it does not have to be mediated and
God does not have to provide a mediator or propitiation in order to enter
into relationship with man. Whereas, after the fall of man, a mediator is
provided out of the graciousness of God, sin is satisfied, and the covenant
is fulfilled by Christ in order that we may experience the blessings of the
covenant. So you have the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace,
but what Barth ends up with is an eternal Covenant of Grace.

And by the way, this is the same thing that Herman Hoeksema comes
up with, and it is the same thing that many other types of hyper-
Calvinists have come up with. So there is continuity between Barth and
certain hyper-Calvinists. In fact, there is a sense in which Barth is the
ultimate hyper-Calvinist. In fact, I would call Bart a
hypersuperlapsarian. And if you want to get into that with me someday, I
can explain what I am talking about there. But this monocovenantal view
that says that there has been this eternal Covenant of Grace and that it
was in place even before the fall, cannot help but downplay sin and see
finiteness as our problem, not sin.

4. So, that moves us on to the fourth significance of this original

relationship that we have been describing. By a close study of Genesis 1,
2 and 3, we are enabled to recognize the difference between finiteness
and sin. For instance, one aspect of Adam’s finiteness was his need for
human companionship expressed in Genesis 2:18, when God says it is not
good for man to be alone. But notice that Adam is not held culpable for
that. And God doesn’t say, it is not good for you to be alone, therefore I
can have nothing to do with you without a mediator. No. That is not
what happens in Genesis 2:18. Man is recognized to need rest because of
his finiteness in Genesis 2:1-3 and so a Sabbath is made for him. He is
not made for the Sabbath, but a Sabbath is made for him. Why? Because
he is finite. But is that held against him? No. No. It is a blessing. He is
divinely created, unfallen, he is sinless. But his constitution needs a
Sabbath rest. And it needs a woman. And so sin and finiteness are not
the same thing.

Let me put this in another way. Sometimes you hear this phrase said:
“To err is human, to forgive, divine.” I know what they are getting at
when they say that. But the point I want to bring across is that to err is
not human, to err is fallen. To err is fallen. We are not being
quintessentially human when we make mistakes. Mistakes is an
overused word. We are not being quintessentially human when
we sin, we are being quintessentially fallen. If sin is of the essence
of humanness, not only does that raise real problems for God’s original
creation, but it makes me wonder what heaven is going to be like. Sin
does not make me more human. It makes me less human. It is
not how God originally created me. And to say, “Man’s basic problem
resides in the fact that he is finite and God is infinite and this chasm
cannot be crossed, we cannot even conceive Him because he is so
majestic, so infinite and we are so finite,” is to miss the whole point of
Genesis 3. And Barthian theology over and over confuses finiteness and
sin. Again, I think I could argue the case. Barth’s problem was not with
sin; it was with man. He basically says, “You know what your problem
is? Your problem is that you’re not God. Your problem is that you are
not infinite.” And that is not the problem the Bible says that we have.
Adam was finite. God did not mock him for that. The problem was that
Adam rebelled. Sin is the problem. Rebellion is the problem. Not
finiteness. We are going to be finite in glory.

5. Fifthly, this original covenant makes it clear that matter is not evil.
This original covenant makes it clear that matter is not evil. God created
the world and God called it good. Matter and things are not evil. People’s
use of them is. So, if you have proper understanding of the original
creation, salvation is not viewed as an escape from matter, or an escape
from the body into a pure spirit, as you get in all the manifestations of
Gnostic teachings from the first century until today. No, salvation in the
biblical sense will involve the whole man, body, and soul, because that
body was created good. Now it is very significant that right now on
the throne of the universe, human flesh sits, in the ascended
Lord Jesus Christ who is forever fully God and fully man. The
dust of the earth sits on the throne of glory.

6. Sixthly, and finally, as we study this original covenant, we see that

man is created in the image of God and, even after the fall, continues to
bear that image, no matter how effaced it is by sin. And thus respect for
human beings, as those who are created in the image of God, is
established; the equal status and responsibility of all men before God as
His stewards of creation is established. Racism and sexism is therefore
banished under a Christian worldview, but only under a Christian
worldview, since a materialist evolutionist can only argue for human
rights by a sheer act of irrationality. There is a reason why Darwinism
became a dominant philosophy in nineteenth century England. Because
survival of the fittest, far from being a quintessentially anticlassicist
argument, is a quintessential class argument which says, “I can give you a
reason why I am superior to you; I out evolved you. And therefore I have
the right to do with you what I will.” So a materialist evolutionist
Darwinist can only argue for basic human rights and human dignity by a
sheer irrational act of the will. Only a Christian can provide an adequate
foundation for appropriate view of human rights. You notice that human
rights, or rights at all, are really contained under the category of the
covenant in that realm of blessings and obligations. And rights fall under
the blessing of the covenant relationship. They are not infinite, by the
way, and they cannot be forever multiplied. They are specific and limited,
but they are there. And we are the only ones who can give an adequate
argument for that today.

 Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace
If you have your Bibles, please open to Genesis 3:14 as we read God’s
Word.

And the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the
field. On your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of
your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between
your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head and you shall
bruise him on the heel.” To the woman, He said, “I will greatly multiply
your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth your children; yet
your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Then,
to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten from the tree which about which I commanded you
saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you. In
toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it
shall grow for you and you shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat of
your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground. Because from
it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Amen. And thus ends this reading of God’s holy Word, let’s pray.

Our Father, we bow before You, we know that those words are words
for us as much as they were for Adam and Eve, for we are in Adam born
children of wrath. We have inherited not only the original corruption
flowing from that sin, but we have inherited original culpability because
Adam was our federal head. We thank You, O Lord, that in Christ we
have been redeemed from the curse that we were under and we are no
longer under that law of the Covenant of Works, but are now under the
Covenant of Grace. Help us this day as we contemplate these things not
only that we might be better able to communicate the truth to Your
people, but also that we may be built up in the truth, that we might
grown in our love and appreciation for Your great redemption. We ask
these things in Jesus’ name. Amen.
 Let me make a couple of comments about the Covenant of Works
before we move on to look at what God did in the aftermath of the failure
of Adam in the test of probation, specifically with regard to the tree, the
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I mentioned that there
have been a number of orthodox Reformed Theologians who have
objected to a bicovenantal structure of redemptive history.

We have mentioned that there are some folks who don’t want to look
at the unfolding plan of God in relationship to humankind in terms of a
Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace, the Covenant of Works
being Pre-fall, and the Covenant of Grace being Post-fall. They actually
want to talk about this Covenant of Grace as being the overarching plan
that structures all of God’s dealing with man both before fall and after the
fall.

Now, I am not going to respond to that particular critique today. But I

want to respond to a permutation of it. Murray wants to still have a two-
fold structure of God’s dealing with man, part one and part two. But he
doesn’t want to call the Covenant of Works the Covenant of Works. If any
of you have read John Murray’s class lectures that are found in the
second volume of his collected writings, in an article called The Adamic
Administration, you will remember that he wants to call this first
relationship between God and Adam “The Adamic Administration,” not
“The Covenant of Works.” And there are four reasons he gives for not
wanting to call this a Covenant of Works, of why he has a problem with
that terminology.

Murray’s rational for The Adamic Administration

The first reason that he gives for having a problem with this idea is
that he says that it downplays the grace of this relationship. The title, The
Covenant of Works, downplays the elements of grace in the relationship
between God and Adam before the fall.

Secondly, he objects to the term because he says the term covenant is

not found in this passage. He says the terminology covenant is not found
and therefore it is not a good idea to call this relationship a covenant
since the terminology is not found.
 Thirdly, he says that the covenant is a term which, when used in the
Scriptures, denotes a relationship between God and man and is uniformly
used of a redemptive relationship. And obviously this is in a sense a pre-
redemptive relationship between God and Adam.

And finally, he suggests that the term covenant, as it is used in the

Bible to describe the relationship between God and man, always carries
with it a sense of security. We argued this ourselves when we read from
Hebrews 6 on the first day of class and commented on the fact that often
covenant is linked with assurance. God’s covenant is there to help us
understand the grounds on which we ought to properly be assured of our
salvation. So he argues, it shouldn’t be used of this relationship because
covenant denotes security and Adam fell. So he gives four reasons why
this relationship shouldn’t be thought of as the Covenant of Works.

And I want to give you a little inside knowledge of Murray’s thinking

processes for a few moments, because I have access to that and those
folks, perhaps, don’t have access to that. It is not because I knew Murray,
but because I do know a man who was a very good friend of Murray and
spent a lot of time talking theology, and especially this point, when
Murray came back to Scotland after his time of teaching at Westminster
Seminary.

I also want to address this because Murray has had a tremendous

impact in the Reformed community in making people a little bit skittish
about talking about a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace. And
in that sense, as much as I admire Professor Murray, I think that he has
done us a disservice. Because the breakdown of a bicovenantal
understanding of God’s dealing with mankind actually weakens our
concept of the Doctrine of Atonement and has a tendency to foster “cheap
grace” teaching. Now, with that, my agenda is right out on the table
there. I want you to have the strongest possible Reformed doctrine for
the atonement that you possibly can have, and I do not want you to teach
cheap grace to your people. And you’ll hear me pounding in that
direction throughout this particular term. So this is why I am going to
take issue with Professor Murray.

Now did Professor Murray have a weak doctrine of Atonement? Read

his Redemption Accomplished and Applied. What a wonderful
book! And if you have never worked through his teaching on the
Doctrine of Atonement, it is wonderful. I think that Murray was an
inconsistent Federalist. That is, he was a Covenant Theologian, but he
was inconsistent at this point and I think at some points he works out of
his theological framework like he is a good old fashioned seventeenth
century Scottish Covenant Theologian. And then, he has some little
quibbles in the back of his mind which he can’t quite square up with that,
which make him go the direction of “The Adamic Administration.” Let’s
take each of these four particular complaints that he has about the
Covenant of Works and let’s say a few things about them.

1. Now, the first thing that he said was that it downplays (this
terminology downplays) the grace aspect of the relationship between God
and Adam. Now, as we have already said, I want to flatly deny the idea
that the relationship between Adam and the Lord prior to the fall was a
grace-based relationship. Let me use one of Murray’s own arguments:
The terminology of grace is never used in the Scripture to denote a
relationship where no demerit exists. Grace is always used to denote
God’s relationship to those who are already in a position of demerit. And
so to talk about God and Adam having a grace-based relationship is
unbiblical. There is no demerit prior to Adam’s fall for God to overcome.
Now does that mean that Adam deserved everything that the Lord gave
him? No. Does that mean that Adam earned the right to the blessings
that God gave to him? No. That is not what we are getting at either. But
once God has made commitments to Adam based upon Adam’s
obedience, Adam could be secure in God following through those
commitments.

And that is precisely why this thing was called by the Old Covenant
Theologians, The Covenant of Works. In other words, it was obedience
based. Adam was in a relationship of blessing which he didn’t deserve.
God, in His goodness, has drawn him into that relationship and basically
said this: “Adam, walk in obedience and this blessing will be yours and
there will be more.” It wasn’t, “Adam you’re in a state of non-blessing
and if you will obey, I will bring you into a state of blessing.” God, in His
goodness, plops Adam into a state of blessing and He says, “Just obey and
you will not only have this blessing, you will have more.” That is implied
in that probationary test. There will come a time, Adam, if you walk in
obedience, I will confirm you in this and I will give you more blessings
yet.

That is why the terminology of Covenant of Works was used. So I

want to rebut Professor Murray’s argument by saying that that is not how
the terminology of grace is used in the Scripture itself. So if you want to
use an exegetical argument, his argument against the terminology against
the Covenant of Works fails at that point. Now, does that mean by saying
that God’s relationship to Adam prior to fall was not a grace relationship,
are we downplaying God’s favor or His goodness or His blessing? No. We
want to play up those things. We want to stress those. We want to stress
that there was absolutely nothing in the world that made God enter into
that kind of relationship with Adam but His love.

God did not have to overcome innate sinfulness in Adam in order to

enter into that relationship. And our Confession, by the way, gets this
exactly right. In The Westminster Confession, chapter 7, section 1, it says
that “the distance between God and His creatures is so great that there
would no way for His creatures to enjoy the fruition of His relationship
unless He condescended by means of a covenant to enter into a
relationship with them.” And notice what it does. It doesn’t suggest that
there is any demerit there in man. It simply suggests that God is so great
and God is so exalted that there would be no way that we could expect the
fruition of intimate fellowship and relationship with Him unless He, of
His own volition, and out of His own love, determined to enter into such
a relationship. And that He did, and He did it in the Garden with Adam
in that original covenant. So I want to counteract Murray’s first
argument by saying, I think he has confused terminology there about
grace.

Now, you know, we can quibble about grace as opposed to mercy, or

grace in graciousness, and we even got into a little discussion about that
last week. The important issue is, of course, the presence of demerit.
That is my point. There may be different terminological ways of getting
at this, and I am not saying that there are not different terminological
ways of getting at it, but the main point I want to make is you have got
one relationship in which the demerit of sin does not exist, and then you
have another relationship in which the demerit of sin does exist, and the
beautiful thing about a bicovenantal structure is, it makes this distinction
clear. And if you wipe out that bicovenantal structure and you say, “It is
all just one big glop of a Covenant of Grace,” what do you do? You
downplay the difference between a relationship in which demerit must be
overcome, and a relationship in which demerit is not present at all. And
that is a very serious downplaying.

And if you do that, that is why I say, you have to teach cheap grace.
You see, if you downplay the difference between God having to overcome
demerit and God not having to overcome demerit, you by the very virtue
of that fact, have to teach cheap grace. That is why I say Murray was not
consistent in that because he still wants to have this double structure. He
still wants to have a bicovenantal structure but just not call the first
covenant a covenant. So he ends up with an Adamic Administration and
a Covenant of Grace. But for him, he still has this wall that is the great
divide of the fall.

2. His second argument is that the word covenant isn’t there. We

have responded to that already in part, and that response is that there are
examples in the Scripture where a covenant is certainly present but where
the terminology is not. And again, in my opinion, this is a reflection of a
little bit of the weakness of biblical theology coming through in Murray.
Murray was very influenced by Vos. And as much as we appreciate Vos’s
work, and the work of those evangelical biblical theologians at the
beginning of the century, I wonder sometimes if they did not allow the
exegesis to circumscribe their theology, and where they didn’t see certain
terminology they questioned whether concepts were present.

In the Reformed tradition, we have always believed that everything in

Scripture is true and authoritative and it is our only rule in faith and
practice, not only in what it says explicitly, but what it says implicitly by
good and necessary consequence. That is a very important doctrine. And
not only in the Reformed faith, but in Christendom. For example, if you
reject that hermeneutic, if you reject the Doctrine of the Trinity, you
reject all manner of Orthodox Christian teaching.
 Let me give you an example of this. A friend of mine and I, when we
were in Scotland, were doing devotions together for a period of time, and
we decided we would work in the Gospel of Matthew. And each of us was
trying to pick up on themes and do some outlining in the Gospel of
Matthew as to major themes that Matthew presses in his Gospel. And I
had picked up on several of them, basically just going through word
studies and seeing repeated words that Matthew was using on a regular
basis. My friend came in one day and he said, “You know one of the
themes I see Matthew pressing here is the issue of faith, the importance
of a person’s personal embrace of Christ as Messiah.” I ran a quick word
study on that and numerically faith was not one of the major categories if
you are just counting words. It was not one of the major categories that
came up. The categories that I had come up with had far more words in
them and hence more verses in them than his. Let me give you an
example. Maybe I would have come with the category of the idea of
Jesus’ fulfilling prophecy and you know that repeated language in
Matthew and this fulfilled what the prophets said. And that occurs
something like 50 times in Matthew. He hits that over and over. So that
is an easy theme to pick up in Matthew. And faith was only mentioned,
let’s say 18 times or something like that. And when I first heard my
friend say that, I thought, “Hum, I am not really sure whether that is a
major theme.” But my friend who was working with me was a literature
major and he did know how to read and I think what he had actually
picked up on was a theme that was definitely there which was not
supported by word study, but which was definitely there. And as I have
been working back over the last two years in the Gospel of Matthew for
the purpose of preaching, this theme of the importance of faith in the
Messiah, I mean it knocks you over the head in the Gospel of Matthew. It
is clearly a significant theme. It is the divide between the crowds and the
Pharisees and the true believers of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew. It is
a major theme, even though the term faith is there, Matthew does not hit
you over the head with it. So, over and over in the Scripture we will find
places where the concept will be used, and where the terminology is not.
And I think it is shallow simply to stop and say well, the terminology is
not there, therefore the concept isn’t. I think we can see even a covenantal
structure given at the end of Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2 in terms of this
relationship between God and Adam. All the elements are there. And so
that, in my opinion, is Murray’s weakest argument of all: Terminology is
not there, therefore we should refrain from calling it a covenant.

The authority of Scripture extends not simply to what it explicitly says

but also to what can be deduced from Scripture legitimately. So that
someone may say, “Well there is no proof text for the Trinity in the
Scripture.” Well, we could argue that point. But no matter what our
answer to that was, let’s say if we said, “Let’s assume for the sake of
argument that there isn’t one proof text for the Trinity in Scripture,” that
does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t a scriptural
argument. And then we could proceed to operate both exegetically and
theologically to answer that question. And I think for those of us who
come from an evangelical tradition, we like to be able to say, “Turn to
Genesis 14:3 and I will show you.” But sometimes, biblical teaching has
to be presented with a little more nuance than that. It is no less explicitly
God’s Word for us. It is no less truth. It just means that there may not be
one verse that you can turn to seal the particular issue.

One of the classic arguments that you get if you have ever been a
student at a state university where you had a religion professor who
enjoyed bashing evangelicals, or if you have been at a private religious
college where you had a professor in a religion department who was really
exalting in the fact that he was dashing to the rocks the faith of these
young evangelical students coming to school, is they will say something to
you like this: “There is not a single passage in all the New Testament that
says Jesus is God and you evangelicals have just made that up.” Well, you
know, we could argue the point of the Theos passages and we could look
at eleven passages in the New Testament which come pretty close to
using just that language. But once you have granted that person his
faulty logic you have a problem. And I might add that a statement like
that without qualification in and of itself could actually be a heresy. That
could be a “Jesus only” heresy there. Jesus is God and there is no
Doctrine of the Trinity. You could interpret even that statement in a
heretical fashion. So there is a reason why the New Testament uses the
language that it uses in that area and you have to be careful about an
argument that says unless you can show it to me in black and white, then
clearly it is not there.
 That is the argument that heretics used against the Orthodox party in
the early church with regard to the Doctrine of Christ, both at Nicaea and
Chalcedon. The Arians were arguing, “Well look, we just want to use
scriptural language about Jesus and you guys keep wanting to bring in
these Greek philosophical terms. Why can’t we just say, ‘Okay we all
believe what John 8:38 says, you know, why can’t we just all get along?’”
And the Orthodox party said, “Because you are twisting the meaning of
Scripture we have got to find language that you can’t use, in order to
convey what the Scripture is trying to convey because you are claiming to
believe what the Scripture says, when in fact you are undercutting the
doctrine of the Scripture. So we don’t care whether you parrot the
language of Scripture when you are undercutting what it means.” So
there the distinction between what it says and what it means becomes
significant.

3. Murray’s third argument against the use of the terminology of

“Covenant of Works” was it is something that is used in a redemptive
relationship in the Scripture. No question. It is overwhelmingly used in
redemptive relationships in Scripture. But let me mention that there are
certainly blessing and spiritual overtones to this relationship established
in the Garden. Yes, it is true that there is no demerit to be overcome
here. But there are certainly what we might call saving, eternal,
nontemporal blessings that are in view to be conveyed to Adam in the
Garden under the Covenant of Works. In other words, it is not merely an
earthly blessing that is contemplated in Genesis 1 and 2. And so again, I
don’t think that the argument, “Well everywhere else we find it, it is
connected with something redemptive,” is valid. It is just lexically true.
From Genesis 6:18, following, you are already in a redemptive
framework. Only two chapters of the Bible are in a nonredemptive setting
and everything else is in a redemptive setting. I mean you haven’t
discovered much by saying that.

4. The final thing, of course, that he argues is that covenant also

always involves security. It is there to assure you that you can’t lose your
salvation. And what happens here? Well, Adam rebels against God. He
is kicked out of the Garden. The relationship fails. And what do you say
about that? Well, you simply say this. There would have been all the
security in the world under this relationship if Adam had obeyed. And
the problem wasn’t in the covenant; the problem was in Adam. It was
Adam’s disobedience that caused the insecurity of this particular
relationship and, of course, that is the uniqueness of this relationship that
in the Covenant of Works; there is no provision for blessing despite
demerit. That is the glory of the New Covenant, and in fact I don’t think
we can properly appreciate that fact about the Covenant of Grace until we
see the fact that God can enter into a relationship where there is no
provision for blessing despite disobedience. You know the relationship
between God and the fallen angels: Fallen angels, they don’t get a second
chance. There is no provision for forgiveness for the fallen angels. So
when God enters into the Covenant of Grace, He is doing something quite
extraordinary.

Influences on Murray
Now, here is the inside scoop. As Donald Macleod talked with John
Murray when he came back from Scotland, there were a number of things
that had made a major impact on Murray with regard to Covenant
Theology. For one thing, Murray was impacted by Vos and by a guy
named Adolph Desmond. Desmond was a big time German New
Testament scholar at the turn of the twentieth century who had argued
very strongly that Covenant should not be translated as a contract or a
treaty or a mutual relationship, but it ought to be translated as a
disposition or a testament, something that was one-sided as opposed to
two-sided. And Desmond did this because he had uncovered all this
literature from Greek legal documents contemporary to the New
Testament and many New Testament scholars followed Desmond for a
period of time. His views have since then been overturned, but he was
very influential in the first part of the twentieth century. And so Murray
was very influenced by this one-sided idea of covenant. And he found the
obediential aspect of the historic Covenant of Works to be a little two-
sided for his taste. So, you will see him, when he defines covenant in his
little tract called The Covenant of Grace, he will define it in a very one-
sided, a very monopluric sort of way. And he is following Vos there and
he is following Desmond.

But, the other interesting thing is, is that Murray indicated to Macleod
that he had actually been impacted a bit by Barth’s argumentation on the
nature of the Covenant of Works and so although Murray would have
been stridently in opposition to Barth’s doctrine of the Scripture and his
doctrine of the Atonement, yet he was swayed to a certain extent by some
of Barth’s arguments regarding Covenant of Works. And Macleod had
opportunity to interact with him on that and argue against those
particular points, but Murray held to his objections and to this day,
Westminster Seminary has tended to be a little bit skittish about the
Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace framework. You will hear
more guys coming out of Westminster talking about The Adamic
Administration, unless they were big fans of Meredith Kline when they
were there. And there is a rather nasty little fight that goes on between
the descendents of Murray and now Gaffin, and the descendants of Kline
over this whole issue. There has been a pretty significant division on
precisely this issue with Kline insisting on the language of the Covenant
of Works, and with Murray having problems with that language. So if
you run across articles by Calvinists out of the Westminster sphere, and
sense that there is an argument going on that you don’t know why, this
may be one of the origins of that particular argument.

The Covenant of Commencement –

Robertson

The Doctrine of Sin

Now, having said a few words about Murray’s objection to the Covenant
of Works, I would like to look at the Covenant of Commencement, as
Robertson calls it, God’s inauguration of the Covenant of Grace after the
fall. And before we look at that inauguration of the Covenant of Grace,
let’s just say a few things about the Doctrine of Sin as it is found in the
first thirteen verses of Genesis 3. Genesis 3:1-13 is absolutely essential to
our understanding of the Gospel, because without an understanding of
sin, and our culpability, we cannot understand or embrace grace. It
seems to me that at least three things are taught to us about sin in
Genesis 3:1-13. In the first five verses, we have this conversation between
Satan and the woman. It constitutes his temptation of her. And the very
nature of the woman’s response to the tempter indicates to us that sin is
being defined for us here as rebellion. The picture of sin here is a picture
of rebellion. There are lots of legitimate ways of describing sin. Many of
you, if you have been through Knox Chamblin’s classes on Paul, will have
heard the various terminologies that Paul will use for sin. He has various
different terms and images that he will use for sin. Here the image is
rebellion. The serpent serves as the tool of Satan in the passage. Sin is
not presented as something that is self-existent, something that is always
been in the world, something that is co-equal and co-eternal with good.
Sin is depicted in this passage as something that comes into the world.

Now God’s sovereignty is stressed throughout the account by

reminding us, for instance, that even the Lord made the serpent. Notice
the phraseology of the passage, “The serpent was more crafty than any
beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” So, even though you
may fear when you are reading some of these early narratives by Moses
that Moses is depicting a God who isn’t quite in control, there are ever so
clever indications throughout of the absolute sovereignty of God. In this
narrative you may be wondering, “What in the world is Satan doing
interfacing with God’s creation like this if God’s in control?” And then
later, when Cain sins, you may be wondering, “Why does God react like
He does?” Or at the end of Genesis 3, when God says, “Behold, the man
has become like one of Us knowing good and evil, now lest he stretch out
his hand and take from the tree of life and eat and live forever, let Us
drive him from the Garden.” You may feel like, “Well, is God indicating
that man can do something that He wouldn’t be able to control?” And
you can go to the story of the Tower of Babel and see God disrupting that
process and saying, “We have got to go down and intervene lest they build
a building to the skies.” And it sounds like God is something less than
sovereignly in control.

But upon closer examination, Moses is actually providing some pretty,

sometimes some clever, theological humor. To give you an example on
the Tower of Babel scenario, what does Moses tell you that they were
building the tower out of? Anybody remember? Bricks and mortar. Now
Moses knew a little bit about bricks, didn’t he? He had supervised the
making of a few bricks in his day, okay. He could tell you about bricks
and mortar as a building material. Okay. He had seen a people have to
make brick without straw. He knew what the significance of that was.
And in Moses’ world, bricks were an inferior building material to stone.
So when Moses tells you that they were going to build a tower to the sky
out of bricks and mortar, it is kind of like, “Ha, ha, ha, they are going to
do what?”

Now again, on top of that you know that the idea was not that they
were literally going to build a tower into heaven, but this was going to be
in the form of a ziggurat, just like some of the great structures that
archeologists have unearthed in that world there today. So there are
subtle things in the text to let you know that Moses didn’t have the
slightest fear that God was somehow going to lose control of this
situation. The fallacious man is shown at every point, and even so in this
passage, Satan, the great enemy of God, the serpent, who is craftier than
any beast which the Lord God has made. So the Lord God is in complete
control in this passage.

But the tempter begins with an insinuation against the Lord rather
than an argument. The question that he puts initially to the woman in
Genesis 3:1 is not meant to query whether God had said what He has
said. “Has God said you may not eat from any tree of the Garden?” The
question is put to the woman in order to entice her to question God’s
judgment. Notice, Satan makes God’s prohibition harsher than it is.
Think how often the world does this to Christians. You know Christianity
doesn’t let you do anything fun. That is sort of the thrust of this
particular argument. I mean God doesn’t let you do anything. He is not
going to let you eat from any of the trees in the Garden. So the
prohibition, the restriction, is overstated at that point. And his question,
“Has God said” is not saying to Eve, “Did God say that?” It is saying, “Is
He so unreasonable as to have made that kind of restrictive prohibition?”
He is inviting Eve to question God’s judgment. He is inviting Eve to do
what? To stand in judgment over the Lord. And that is the essence of
rebellion—where you forget that God made you and now you
stand in rebellion over the Lord.

One of the brightest high school students that I ever had the privilege
of working with, is now a godly wife and mother of an active church
officer in Nashville, Tennessee. When she first came to St. Louis, her
father had been transferred with a major telephone company into St.
Louis and they had been going to relatively moderate to liberal kinds of
Presbyterian churches. They accidentally stumbled into our PCA church
and the father really didn’t like the church, but the kids loved it, and the
mom loved it and so they sort of begged Dad to settle in and come to our
church. But interacting with Nancy was always a challenge because she
was very intelligent and she was very sensitive. And when we were
tackling the doctrine of Hell, you know, it wasn’t something detached and
intellectual for her. It was real. And I will never forget the look in her
eyes, that Wednesday night when it dawned on her that I really believed
that there was a hell and that there were people there. And you know, she
cared about me, and I cared about her, and she said, “I just can’t believe
that you believe that.” And we engaged in a long discussion that night
about how there could be a hell—how could there be a hell, if there is a
loving God. How could a loving God create a place like that? And how
could He send people to be there? And by the way, it was Nancy who
drove the point home to me that the problem is not what people often
think it is. So often people lock into the problem of how people get to hell,
(aka “Predestination versus free will”). That is kid stuff. The problem is
hell. Who cares how somebody gets there? The problem is the fact that it
is there and that there are people in it. That is the real problem. And
Nancy, she had locked onto that with her sharp mind, just like a bulldog
and wouldn’t let go. And we went round and round. And frankly, she
had me baffled. I had run out of all my apologetic bag of tricks in terms
of trying to argue this point with her. She knew that I had a strong
biblical presentation of the truth, but she couldn’t accept that truth
because the pain of that truth was so great to her. She just couldn’t get
her head around it. And finally I said to her, I said, “Nancy, are you a
sinner?” “Yes, I am a sinner.” “And you do things that hurt your parents
and hurt your friends from time to time? You do wrong things?” “Yes, I
do.” “And you are unfair sometimes and you are unkind and you agree
with that?” “Yes, absolutely I do.” And I said, “Let me ask you this: Has
God ever done anything wrong to you?” “Oh, no, of course not.” “Has He
ever been unfair to you?” “No, never.” “And you believe that God is
good?” “Absolutely. I believe God is good.” And I said, “Well, let me ask
you this: So what you are saying is really this, that you, Nancy, who admit
that you are sinner, you are worried that God is going to do something
wrong here?” And she stopped for few minutes and she said, “Now I
guess that is what I am saying.” I said, “You Nancy, who hurt people, who
admit to me that God has never hurt you and never done wrong and He
has never been unfair, you’re just a little afraid that He might be a bit out
of line on this particular thing? Isn’t that what you are saying?” “I guess
that is what I am saying.” I said, “That is kind of ridiculous, isn’t it? That
you and me, sinners, worry that the perfect God might do something
wrong?” Now in the sincerity of her question, and I want you to hear, I
am not downplaying the sincerity of that question, there was hidden
rebellion. Because she had decided that she was more caring, more
loving, more concerned about people than God. And she is not, and you
are not, and I am not. But she had lifted her sense of compassion above
the Almighty’s and she was concerned that something that God had said
in His Word was less compassionate than she would be if she were in
charge.

And that is the essence of rebellion and that was what Satan was
trying to tempt Eve with; that was the direction that he wanted her to go.
And Eve answers pretty well initially, you’ll see there in verse 2, she says,
“From the fruit of the tree, we may eat.” So she contradicts him. She
says, ”No, we can eat from the fruit of the trees from the Garden, but
from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden, God says, you shall
not eat it or touch it, or you will die.” So she starts off by contradicting
the serpent. She rejects the implication that God has done something
that is not very wise or fair or good.

But notice how she already has begun to answer on Satan’s own
terms. Two mistakes she makes. First of all, notice that she adds words
to the response. She says, she indicates that God had said we are not to
touch the fruit, and of course that was not part of the proscription that
had been given to Adam in Genesis 2, as far as we know. And given the
economy of words in these passages, we may assume that Moses had
some specific reason for including that particular report. In other word,
if she were just simply expanding on a shortened account that had
previously been given, one wonders why Moses would have included that
in order to contrast with the previous account that had been given.

Secondly, notice she gives a wrong motive for obedience. She says,
“You shall not eat from it, or touch it, lest you die.” So there is an
indication here that the motivation is rather than keeping this command
for God’s glory, keeping lest we die. So, we already see a crack in the dike
here.

Then, Satan openly contradicts the Word of the Lord in verse 4.

Notice that Satan quotes the Lord better than Eve does, except he adds a
negation. Instead of the Lord’s original words, which were “You shall
surely die,” Satan says “You shall surely not die.” And so he emphatically
contradicts the Lord. And so we see both in Adam and Eve’s decision in
this passage and in Satan’s attack and assault on Lordship, it is rebellion.
Satan is rebelling against the Lord’s Word directly. “You know, I am
going to contradict what the Lord has said to you.” And Eve and Adam
are being tempted to trust their judgment and the advice of Satan more
than the Word of the Lord. In both cases, Adam and Eve and the serpent
are doing what? Setting themselves up over the Lord to judge for
themselves what is right and wrong. So we have got a Lordship issue, we
have got a rebellion issue. So sin is depicted as rebellion in this passage.

Verses 6 and 7 make it clear as well that sin always involves shame.
Sin always involves shame. You see in verse 7, “Then the eyes of both of
them were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sewed
fig leaves together and they made themselves coverings.” So
disobedience has consequences. And one of the consequences of sin is
shame. Utterly unexpected consequences. They had been told that they
would be enlightened. They would be like God and what in fact happened
was they were in enlightened in a horrifying way. They woke up to an
experience that they had never had before. The experience was shame.

Then, it is made clear in verses 8-13 that sin is not only rebellion, sin
not only brings shame, it is made clear that sin disrupts divine/human
fellowship and human/human fellowship. In other words, it disrupts
relationships, both vertically and horizontally: relationships between
God and man and between man and man. Verse 8 depicts this loss of
relationship with the Lord. They heard the sound of the Lord God
walking in the Garden in the cool of the day and the man and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the Lord in among the trees of the
Garden. So there is estrangement, man in hiding because of his sin.

Then we see in the following verses, especially 9-11 the estrangement

between Adam and Eve. Isn’t it interesting, in verse 8 we are told that the
man and his wife hid themselves from the Lord. So the two of them
together hid themselves among the trees. And then we have in verse 9,
the Lord God called the man and said to him, “Where are you?” and he
said, “I heard the sound of You in the Garden, I was afraid because I was
naked, so I hid myself.” The personal pronouns are overwhelming in this
passage. Where did Eve go? She just disappeared off the face of the
earth. Now maybe we can relate to the psychology of that, you know
when you are caught red-handed and suddenly you’re the only person in
the world because you were just caught red-handed. But you can already
see the fracturing of the relationship. It is every man for himself at this
point. Eve, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, all of that is gone in a
flash. And then, of course, the blame shifting begins. “Who told you,
who gave you?” “The woman, which You made, you know. It is her fault
and it is Your fault, Lord.” And so this is the scenario that confronts us
when we come to Genesis 3:14-24.

The Curse
Now here is what I would like for us to do. I want to look closely with you
at these words of curse. And I want you to see at least three things. I
want you to see first of all, that ironically, these words of curse are the
first step forward in the Covenant of Grace. These words of cursing
are the first step forward in the Covenant of Grace. Particularly,
I want you to note that in these curses, blessings are intertwined. In
these curses, blessings are intertwined. So the words of curse are often
times backhanded blessings. Secondly, I want you to see that the
Creation Ordinances are not only mentioned but reinforced as continuing
responsibilities. And then I want you to note that there is a movement
towards restoration in this passage. There is a movement towards
restoration. Notice that the words of Genesis 3:14-19 follow the order of
the transgression. The serpent was the first transgressor, so he is first
addressed. Then Eve is addressed, then Adam. Notice also, that that
order culminates with Adam because he is the one who is ultimately held
responsible. It is a very interesting thing in this passage that God does
not ultimately place the blame of sin on the serpent but upon Adam
because he is the federal head. That also ties in with a very important
aspect of our understanding of sin. I think a lot of times, even in the
Christian community, we get sort of a Flip Wilson, “the devil made me do
it” kind of attitude towards sin, or at least original sin. Whereas Murray
has that wonderful quote that “there is no external power in the universe
that can cause a rational being to sin. That movement, that decision,
comes from within.” We are never robots in sin.

Now it is also interesting as we look at these curses, no question is put

to the serpent, you know. God speaks to Adam first, and questions him.
He speaks to Eve, and questions her. And then immediately begins a
curse against the serpent. Why? Because he was already convicted and
already excluded from pardon. The fact that Satan is in the Garden in the
form of serpent lets you know that the Fall in the angelic world has
already taken place. There couldn’t have been a tempter there if the fall
of Satan and his angels hadn’t already occurred. And God has absolutely
no intention of remedying that rebellion. And it stands as a stark
reminder at the outset that what God is about to do for Eve and for Adam,
He doesn’t have to do this. He could continue to be the God of love
eternally and not remedy their sin. And it magnifies the glory of His
grace that He does precisely that. He remedies sin. He inaugurates a
program of redemption.

Now this word in Genesis 3:14 is formally spoken to the serpent, but it
is directed towards Satan. And it is also important to note that this curse
contains implicit blessing. In fact, it may contain the greatest of the
blessings stated in all the curses, especially in verse 15. Genesis 3:15
shows us a divinely established enmity between the seed of the woman
and the seed of the serpent. And that enmity, that warfare, that strife, is
the most blessed strife that has ever existed in the history of mankind.
Because God to put enmity between Satan and the woman is to drive a
wedge between the woman and the enemy of her soul. For God to say, “I
am establishing a never-ending war between Eve, between her
descendants, between the serpent, and his descendants,” is to say, “I am
putting up a barrier of protection for the woman and for her descendants
after her to protect her from concluding a false peace with the serpent
and his descendants.” So this is the most blessed thing that God could
ever do, is to establish warfare. And the whole framework of the
Christian life in our wilderness experience in the Old Testament as it is
described and our spiritual warfare described in the New Testament flows
from this. There are many times we yearn for peace in this life, a
cessation of this warfare. That would be the most dangerous thing that
could ever happen because this is the most blessed war that was ever
inaugurated. It is a just war. It is there for the eternal benefit of our
souls. And it is inaugurated right there in Genesis 3:15 when God says,
“and I will put enmity between you and the woman.”

The talking serpent.

A couple of comments about the talking serpent before we move on.
Let me say that I think this is another element of the narrative that Moses
is highlighting to remind us how ridiculous this rebellion of Eve is. There
is no indication that there were other talking animals in the Garden. The
talking serpent should have definitely been a red light for Eve. Again, we
have the picture of an animal tempting and arguing with a human when
just a few verses previously, who had been put in charge of the animals?
The humans. There again is a picture of what happens, the reversal of
order and priorities. when sin occurs. So there is a second element of the
narrative designed to point out the irony of sin. Finally, this idea of Satan
inhabiting the body of an animal is not unheard of. Think of pigs in the
New Testament, remember? And the idea of an animal being used to
convey revelatory spiritual truth is not unheard of. Remember Balaam's
ass. And by the way, I love that narrative in Numbers on Balaam's ass in
the King James Version. Go back and read it sometime because Balaam's
ass, you remember, keeps talking to Balaam and you know what the first
word of response of Balaam is to his ass in the King James Version?
“Nay.” And I have always gotten a kick out of that. You know, here is
Balaam saying “Nay,” and the ass saying, “You know but Balaam, we can’t
go that direction, there is an angel.” So Calvin says this about the talking
serpent:

“Though the impious make a noise, there is nothing justly to offend us in

the mode of speaking as a serpent by which Moses describes Satan. Add
to this the baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived,
that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given by the hand of
God into subjection to them, yet they suffered themselves to be lead away
by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God. As often as they
beheld one of the animals, which were in the world, they ought to have
been reminded by that both of the supreme authority and the singular
goodness of God. But on the contrary when they saw the serpent and
apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but in
violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it
as participators in the same apostasy. What can be imagined more
dishonorable than this extreme depravity? And thus I understand the
name of the serpent, not allegorically as some foolishly do, but in its
genuine sense.”

And so that is Calvin’s response to the allegorical interpretation of the

serpent. That was a good question. I just wanted to mention that briefly
since someone had asked about that at the end of class.

God’s curse on the serpent

The curse of the Lord against the serpent in Genesis 3:15. We have said
here that in this curse there is implicit blessing for mankind, because for
God to put enmity between Satan and the woman is to drive a wedge
between the woman and the enemy of her soul. And in fact, we have the
seed form here in this doctrine of the seed of the woman and the seed of
the serpent in Genesis 3:15—by the way that theme will run throughout
the book of Genesis and be picked up by Paul in Galatians, especially with
regard to the seed of Abraham—but in this passage, beginning here in
Genesis 3:15, we have the seed of the doctrine of predestination. We have
God clearly dividing the world into two camps, the seed of the woman
and the seed of the serpent, and we have God taking initiative for the
woman in her salvation. So you have the seed of the doctrine of election.
By our nature, we are at enmity with God, but by His will, He changes our
nature so that we are at enmity with Satan. And so this enmity is the
most wonderful enmity that there can be for a sinner.
 Now, the enmity is on three fronts in Genesis 3:15. Look closely at the
passage. First, God says, “between you and the woman,” speaking to the
serpent. So it is between Satan and the woman; there is an individual
enmity to begin with between Satan and the woman.

Why does the Lord begin by establishing enmity between the serpent
and the woman? Well, first, because the woman was the first seduced.
So He begins with her in the remedy to the seduction. She was first
seduced into sin and so God immediately begins His remedy with her.
Second, because this enmity establishes the role that the woman will have
in redemption. It establishes the role that the woman will have in
redemption. By her, the door of sin was opened into the world. But now
she will have a role in salvation. That is, the woman will be the bearer of
the seed. And the seed, eventually Jesus, will be the source of salvation.
So even as she was the door of sin into this world, so also, she will be the
bearer of the seed of salvation.

Notice the second level of enmity, the enmity between the seeds: the
seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. So this is an expansion of
the conflict. There is not just individual conflict between Satan and Eve,
but between their seeds.

Now, who is the woman’s seed? To whom is that referring? Eve was
the mother of Cain, just as well as she was the mother of Abel, so who is
this seed referring to? It does not refer to all mankind clearly. Clearly.
The seed of the woman is not every human being descended from Eve.
That is made clear as soon as we get to Genesis 4:8. And John tells us
explicitly in I John 3:12 that Cain was of the evil one. So though Cain was
physically the son of Eve, yet spiritually, he was of the seed of the
serpent.

Now that again reminds us that family lineage is no guarantee of

grace. He may have been in the physical family of Adam and Eve, but yet
he was of the seed of the serpent. So when we refer to the woman’s seed,
it can’t mean all mankind because immediately in Genesis 4, we come
upon one of her descendants who is of the evil one. So, who does it refer
to? It refers to the descendants of the woman in whom God sets enmity
against Satan. It refers to all of the descendants of the woman in whom
God sets enmity against Satan. And we will look at some examples of this
in just a few minutes.

Who is Satan’s seed? Well, all those in whom God did not set enmity
with Satan. And Moses gives you a string of them from Genesis 4 through
Genesis 11 and further.

One last thing, before we look at an example of this theme of the seeds
in Genesis. If you look at the third front of enmity in Genesis 3:15, you
will see this phrase, it or he, shall bruise your head and you shall bruise
his heal. And notice here that the conflict is again individual. The
conflict between you, Satan, and it, or he, the singular seed of the
woman.

So two representatives, one representing all the hardened hosts of

hell, the other representing the redeemed hosts of God, engage in hand-
to-hand combat. And so the history of redemption is the history of God-
originated enmity culminating in the conflict between Satan and the
singular seed who is Christ, Paul says in Galatians 3:16.

And the development of this conflict between the two seeds can be
seen in the period recorded by Moses in Genesis 4 – 11. You can see the
seed of Satan in the life of Cain in Genesis 4:1-17. You can see it in the life
of Lamech in Genesis 4:19-24. You can see it in the description of Noah’s
contemporaries in Genesis 6:1-6, and you remember the phrase, “and
every intention of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.”
That is the description of Noah’s contemporaries. Then again you can see
it in Nimrod, the man hunter, in Genesis 10:8-10 and then you can see it
in Genesis 11:1-9 in the builders of the Tower of Babel. So you see this
theme developing there. Those who follow in the line of Cain in
wickedness.

On the other hand, we can see the seed of the woman and God’s grace
on the seed of the woman in Genesis 4-11. In Genesis 4:25-26, we see
Seth as one who is in the line of grace and under whose influence people
began to call out upon the Lord and corporately worship. We see the
godly Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24, we see the godly Lamech in Genesis
5:28-29, father to Noah. And we see Noah himself in Genesis 6:8-9, and
verse 22 as part of the seed of the woman. So when we refer to Genesis
3:15 as the first giving of the Gospel, as the protoevangelium, that is not
just wishful thinking by allegorizing early church interpreters. Clearly
here, we have in Genesis 3:15, the very seed of the Gospel. Matthew
Henry says this; “For by faith in this promise, we have reason to think our
first parents and the patriarchs before the flood were justified.” And so in
this establishment of enmity between the woman and Satan and between
her seed and his seed, we see the very root of the Gospel and of divine
election.

So this warfare is the very evidence of life and grace. That is very
important for us to remember, pastorally speaking. We will have many
Christian friends, perhaps ourselves, who will be depressed from time to
time, because of the eternal turmoil we have because of sin in our lives.
And yet an appropriate sorrow and concern over indwelling sin is not a
sign of spiritual death. It is a sign of spiritual life. It is when I am trying
to deny that I have sin to deal with that I am in trouble, not when I am
grieving over the continual fight against sin. That is a sign of spiritual
life. And that flows from the reality of this enmity that God has
established. This kind of warfare is the very evidence of life and grace. If
we can be at peace with sin, or reject the message of repentance, that is
the sign of soul sickness. That is the sign of death.

And notice how often in the history of the church, the call of those
who are the tool of Satan within the church is to do what? To make peace
with the world. We see that is not our call to make. The church is called
to say “No” to the world, not because it hates the world, understand that.
This feeds into a good question that was asked earlier. When we start
talking about the “us and them”—the divide between the seed of the
woman and the seed of the serpent—doesn’t that lead into an attitude
that builds an improper hatred for those who are created in the image of
God and yet not redeemed, and as such, how do we relate to them?

The church must say “No” to the world; the church must refuse to be
at peace with the world in order to love the world. So you can’t say “yes”
to the church until you have first said “no” to the world. You can’t say, “I
love you truly,” until you have been willing to say, “I will not tell you that
what will destroy you is good for you.” So you are not loving a person
when you say, “Oh yes, I love you and you just go right on in that
behavior which will land you in hell,” anymore that you could tell a friend
who is an alcoholic, “I love you so much that I am going to buy booze for
you.” That is not loving. So the church must say “no” to the world in
order that it can say, “yes” to the world. There must be that divine enmity
in order that we can preach the Gospel of peace.

So the enmity is not there so that we can build an improper hatred

towards unredeemed human beings. The enmity is there so that we see
that proper distinction between grace and condemnation, between
righteousness and unrighteousness, between sinners saved by grace and
sinners who have not yet owned their sin. That barrier must stay there in
order for the church to have anything to say to the world. If we are no
different than they are, then I have nothing to say to them of use or of
help. So the distinction must be there, not so that we can beat our breasts
and feel really smug and proud like the Pharisee, but the distinction must
be there so that we can say we understand the circumstance that you are
in, we have been there ourselves, but by God’s grace we have been
brought from that and we know that God’s grace can change your life as
well. And if you will not turn you will face the consequence of the sin. So
the distinction is there not so that we can feel really good about ourselves,
but so that we truly have something to offer to someone else. If we are no
different from them, it is all the same. If there is no enmity between the
church and the world, the church has nothing to say to the world.

The Creation Ordinances Reaffirmed

Now, having looked at that particular inauguration of God’s covenant in
the Garden with Adam and Eve, let me make just a few comments on the
remainder of the chapter, verses 16-24. First of all, notice how the
original Creation Ordinances, the ordinances of the covenant in the
Garden, are reaffirmed in the curse of both the woman and the man. In
Genesis 16, the curse of the woman is, “I will greatly multiply your pain in
childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for
your husband, and he will rule over you.” Notice here that that creation
ordinance of procreation is still in force. And we are in the Covenant of
Grace now. The Fall has occurred, but procreation is still a mandate. It is
very important for us to understand that childbearing is not the curse
there, as much as it may feel like it sometime. Childbearing and child
rearing is not the curse. The grief associated with it now is the curse.
Matthew Henry says this, “The sorrows of childbearing are multiplied, for
they include not only the travailing throws, but the indisposition before
and the nursing toils and vexations afterwards. And after all if the
children prove wicked and foolish, they are more than ever heaviness to
her that bore them.” So the sorrows attendant with the obligation of
procreation and child rearing, that is the curse. Child rearing is the
blessing. The childbearing is a blessing. It is a blessing from God. It is
always represented that way in the Scripture. But now, because of the
Fall, there will be vexing aspects to that that were never present prior.

Notice also the phrase, “he will rule over you.” Now though there was
already headship and hierarchy in the created order, in the husband-wife
relationship, the implication is here that there will be as a result of sin an
element of discord in the marital relationship, and that even as the
woman may have inappropriate desires of control, the man may have
inappropriate responses of subjection. So we see again here the order of
headship in the marriage part of creation. But the abuse of that order in
marital life is a function of the Fall. And it is not unfair to say that every
marital difficulty can be traced to this point of origin. And our
commitment to marriage requires us to be aware of that dynamic and to
combat it consciously in our own minds. And it is not surprising that
Satan attacks here at this point.

Now in the curse to Adam, we see another of the Creation Ordinances

confirmed. That ordinance of labor or of dominion. In verses 17 – 19 we
see God’s curse to Adam. And notice the mercy of this curse. Adam is
not cursed directly. Notice the language, “cursed is the ground because of
you.” A terrible and pervasive sentence is passed on to the world and his
environment because of Adam’s sin. And Adam’s punishment included
three distinct aspects.

1. First, toil in his labor (pain or heaviness is the literal translation of

the word there). Pain or heaviness in his labor in the ground. Notice
again, the creation ordinance of labor continues. The creation ordinance
of labor continues. Labor is not the curse; toil in labor is the curse.
2. Secondly, the fruits of his labor will be impaired. Not only would
there be toil and producing a yield, but there would be an impairment of
the fruits of his labor. “Thorns and thistles will grow for you,” God says
in verse 18. This parallels Jesus’ statements in Matthew, does it not,
where He speaks about a place where “moth and rust corrupts and
thieves break in,” in contrast to the kingdom of heaven. This is the same
idea here with the thorns and thistles. Listen to what Derek Kidner says
about thorns and thistles: “Thorns and thistles are eloquent signs of
nature untamed and encroaching. In the Old Testament they marked the
scenes of man’s self defeat and God’s judgment.” He also has a wonderful
and suggestive word about what man’s labor would have been like apart
from the fall. Listen to this sentence and see if it doesn’t bring ideas to
mind: “The nature miracles of Jesus give us some idea of the control
which man under God may have exercised over his environment.” Think
about that.

3. The third aspect of Adam’s punishment: No earthly rest from

burdens. They will plague him all the days of his life. Only at the very
end of Adam’s sentence is death mentioned. You will eat bread until you
return to the ground. And again, that is evidence of God’s grace to Adam
in delaying the immediate execution of the sentence of physical death.
But in both the curse or the condemnations handed out to woman and to
man, God’s grace and mercy are manifest. Even in His punishment, there
is a reemphasis on the creation ordinances and the blessings that are
attached to them, in contrast to Satan’s sentence. Any questions about
that so far?

Question: The Covenant of Grace as bilateral

A. The importance of the Covenant of Works and the bilateral aspects of
that come to play in Christ’s work on our behalf in the Covenant of
Grace. And clearly there is just as strong a bilateral element to Christ’s
work on our behalf as there is in Adam. In fact you can make a case that
Christ has to do much more than Adam was asked to do. For one thing,
Christ was born in a world where there was already a ceremonial law, and
Adam was not. And so Christ not only had to obey the laws of nature
under the Covenant of Works, but the ceremonial code which was a
burdensome code. In addition, He had to do it in a fallen world. And in
addition, He had to subject Himself to a type and station of relationship
which was, as it were, beneath His dignity. So the beauty of that bilateral
relation paralleling in both Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works is
that it highlights Christ’s role on our behalf. Now, from our standpoint,
you know that is where it becomes asymmetrical because the obediential
element of the Covenant of Grace is not the same for you and me as it was
for Christ. The beauty of the Covenant of Grace is Christ is fulfilling that
obediential aspect on our behalf and so our obedience is of a different
kind and order than His. That is a good question.

Question: “I just wondered as we are looking at how chapter two ends,

how the curse ends for Adam, is the significance that we are seeing in the
two covenants in the fact that the redemptive quality is not seen with
Adam. All we see is that in him as our federal head leads to death, should
we be making a strong connection that now that the woman, a new
federal head must be given to us because through him, the way his curse
is ended, it is just you shall return to dust, so in Adam as we go through
Genesis they die. Are we supposed to be connecting that in the fact that
we have a new, somebody new has to step into the scene? Adam has been
relieved of duty.”
A: Yes. Clearly the promise of, you know, of a new representative is not
vested in Adam and the finality of that and you shall return to dust may
be part of the rhetorical emphasis of that. But it is clearly there in
Genesis 3:15 with regard to a descendant or a child of Adam and Eve.
And there is indication in both at the beginning and the ending of Genesis
4 that Eve was already looking for that, first in Abel, and then later in
Seth. And wondering is this the one who is the seed? So, I would agree
with that, that the terminal language about Adam reminds you that he
can’t serve that role as a dual mediator for both these relations, you have
got to be looking somewhere else.

Question: “Robertson speaks of death and the fig leaves and clothing.
Is that a vague reference to some type of sacrifice?”
A: Oh, I don’t think you have to try and make the garments some sort of
leftovers from a covenant sacrifice or something like that. I think it is
very clear, again as we discuss why covenant terminology isn’t used prior,
the explicit covenant terminology isn’t used prior to Genesis 6:18, it may
have been that some of those ritual conventions were simply not
contemporaneous to that time. The ritual conventions are not of the
essence to describe the relationship. They are confirming and they
certainly develop their own significance in terms of the Doctrine of the
Sacraments as the Old Testament goes on. But, I don’t even think you
have to try and find some sort of ritual aspect of death at the inauguration
of the covenant. Clearly, just as death was implied in the breaking of the
Covenant of Works, we’re going to see what happens when one cuts
themselves off from the Covenant of Grace even in the book of Genesis.
You will see it in the language of Genesis 4 and then you will see it again:
where does Ishmael take his leave from Abraham’s family? Is it Genesis
18, or is it later? Anyway, you will see the same language, they went and
they dwelled to the east of their brethren and so you will see on at least
three occasions, sons, in the physical line which you might think of as the
line of promise, you will see them take leave of the covenant. With Esau,
and in Ishmael, and in Cain, and so the death implication, the spiritual
death implications are clearly there for the Covenant of Grace from the
beginning.

The Broken Covenant of Works Brought

Death into the World
The Broken Covenant of Works brought Death into the World
Romans 5:12-14

If you have your Bibles, I​d invite you to turn with me to Romans, chapter
5. It​s been a month since we​ve been in Romans together, so let me
refresh your memories. In Romans 1 and 2 the apostle tells us what the
problem is. Our problem. The problem of sin and estrangement from
God. Rebellion against Him. In Romans, chapter 3 he sets forth God​s
solution, the only solution to our predicament, and that is justification by
grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. He set forth the atoning work of
Jesus Christ, he set forth the importance of our trust in Him and in Him
alone as God​s way of salvation, as His resolution to our predicament. In
Romans, chapter 4 he defends that particular view from scripture.
Particularly, he shows that it is an Old Testament idea that we are
justified by grace through faith in Christ alone. Paul does not want to be
accused of being an innovator in that regard. He wants to make it clear
that he did not come up with the idea of God saving His people by grace
alone. So he demonstrates justification by faith from the Old Testament,
especially from the story of Abraham and David.

Having done that in Romans, in chapter 5, in the portion that we​ve

already studied in verses 1 through 11, he begins to draw some
implications from this glorious doctrine of justification. He tells us, for
instance, at the beginning of Romans 5, that because we are justified by
faith, we have peace with God. We are literally at peace with God. We​ve
been reconciled. He has been reconciled to us. So now for the first time in
our experience we have peace with God.

He furthermore tells us that because we are justified by faith we have

reason to rejoice in sufferings. He tells us that because we are justified by
faith, we have an experience of being awash in the love of God, and He
tells us that because we are justified by faith, we have no need to fear the
final judgment. We have no need to fear the great tribulation. We shall be
brought through it, and in it we shall glory in Him because we are secure
in the one who has died for us.

Now having reminded ourselves again of those things which Paul has
been speaking about, Paul is now about to launch into a new section of
the book. From Romans, chapter 5, verse 12 all the way to Romans,
chapter 8, verse 39, Paul is going to do a little bit of a recapitulation. He​s
not going to say the same thing over again, but what he is going to do is
he​s going to say, "Now, having heard what I​ve said so far, I want you to
understand what is behind what I have said. What are the
presuppositions? What are the theological points and premises on which
what I​ve told you about the gospel so far is based? And that​s where we
are in Romans, chapter 5 and we​ll begin in verse 12. This is God​s holy
word. Hear it tentatively and relevantly:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the word and death
through sin. And so death spread to all men because all sinned; for until
the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who
had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of
him who was to come."

Amen, and thus ends this reading to God​s holy and inspired word. May
He add His blessings to it. Let​s pray.

Our Lord and our God, this is Your word. We ask this day as we come to it
that as we understand it You would enhance our gratitude for the grace
that You have shown to us; or if we have not yet tasted of that grace in
Jesus Christ, that in the very hearing of this word, we would be driven to
Him. This we ask earnestly in Jesus​ name, Amen.

Why can​t we save ourselves by our own works? Why can​t we do it? Why
can​t we do something to make up for our sin? There are a lot of people
who think that​s how you​re saved. You do a few things wrong, you do a
few things to make up for it and even out the account and you​re accepted
by God. Why doesn​t it work that way? There​s a sense in which Paul,
having gotten to Romans, chapter 5, verse 11, wants to pause right there
and pull back and look at the presuppositions to which he has said, and
he wants to explain to you again that salvation doesn​t work that way.
Why is that we can​t contribute anything to our salvation. Why is it that
we can​t be justified any other way than by faith in Christ alone?

Well, beginning in Romans 5, verse 12, Paul supplies you a very ample
answer to that particular question, and I​d like you to follow his argument
with me for a few moments. Paul is saying that everything that he has
told you previously about the human predicament, about your sinfulness.
And remember Romans 1 and Romans 2 where he talked about our
sinfulness in heart. We didn​t worship God as we knew that we ought to
worship him. He​s talked to us about our sinfulness and perversion where
we​ve actually inverted what God said. We glorified those things which He
condemned, we have condemned those things which He glorified. We​ve
worshipped the creature rather than the creator. We​ve perverted justice,
we​ve perverted morality. So, he speaks to us of our sinfulness in heart. He
speaks to us of our sinfulness in behavior, he speaks to us about
sinfulness in worship, in all those ways. But in all those ways as he
demonstrated our need for redemption, what had he done? He had
focused on our sins.

Now, he says ,think about that predicament that I​ve already talked about.
You are sinful, you​re in need of reclamation. But I want you to think
about it a little bit differently now. I have talked to you in the past about
your sinfulness, in view of your own personal sin, and perhaps the sin of
your particular group, whether you be Jew or Gentile. Now, however, I
want you to think in terms of your sinfulness because of the fact that you
are related to Adam. I want you to think of your sinfulness in light of the
fact that you are under Adam, your head and representative, and he
sinned and rebelled against God, and because he sinned and rebelled
against God, you are justly condemned. Let me just pause right there.
Don​t argue with me, yet. I know there are already some people saying,
"That​s not fair, Paul." We​ll get to a chance to let you argue in a few
moments. But right now hear Paul​s argument out. You can start probing
him with questions in a moment. But unless you understand what he is
asserting, you won​t understand the answers to your questions about what
he is asserting.

Paul is saying, because we are in Adam, we bear responsibility and we are

accountable to God because of his sin rebellion and defection. However
unfair that may seem to you, understand what Paul is saying about it.
This doctrine is called original sin. It has been one of those doctrines
which people have loved to hate for years. But it​s right here in Romans,
chapter 5. And Paul clearly thinks it is important for us to understand it
in order to understand and appreciate the gospel. And he says, I want you
to think of yourselves as in Adam. You​re part of his race. You​re
descended from him. You​re descended from him ethically and morally.
You act like he acted.

But more significantly than that, Paul is saying, Adam was your covenant
head and representative. What Adam did, he did as a public person, he
did as your federal representative. He acted as if you were acting when he
acted in the garden in taking that forbidden fruit. And because of that, I
want you to understand yourself in that light, I want you to understand
that if you are in Adam, you are under an old order of existence, and in
that old order of existence, there is only sin, death and judgment.
Now the reason Paul is raising this point is so that we will be able to
contrast Adam and being in Adam with Christ and being in Christ. Adam
the negative example. Christ the positive example.

But you will notice in verse 12 that Paul didn​t even get to that part of his
argument. You need to understand that Paul begins a statement in verse
12 that he does not complete until he gets to verse 18. Now already you​re
thinking to yourself, "Boy, I understand what Peter meant when he said
that there were things in Paul​s writings that were hard to understand."
Okay, I hear you, but it​s not that hard. What Paul is going to say is going
to be hard to swallow, but it​s not going to be that hard to understand. In
fact, in verse 12, Paul makes an assertion; In verse 13 and 14 all he does is
prove those assertions. I​d like to look at three things with you today.

Before you do that though, notice, looking at verse 12, that Paul begins a
sentence that he does not finish. And he does not finish that sentence
until verse 18. You can see it. Look at the just as and the even so. Just as
always begins as a clause that​s going to be followed up by another clause
that begins with even so or so also. Okay. Look at verse 12. You get the
just as, but you don​t get the so also. Where is the so also? Look at verse
18, "So then just as through one transgression there resulted
condemnation to all men," he​s basically repeating just what he said in
verse 12. "So also, even so, through one act of righteousness, there
resulted justification for all like men. So understand the structure of
Paul​s argument. He starts off in verse 12. In the middle of his statement,
he​s thinking, you know they​re not going to have a clue what I​m saying
unless I tell them something else in five more verses. So he stops right
there in the middle of a sentence; plunk right in the middle of a sentence,
and he plugs in a very long explanatory paragraph. And then he comes
back to his sentence again; he repeats the first half, and he gives you the
sentence again. So the whole point of this section is to parallel Adam to
Christ. To compare them and to contrast them to show what it means to
be in Adam and to show what it means to be in Christ.

But the reason he​s showing you this is so you will appreciate how grave
your predicament is. Your problem is not nearly that you do a few sins
here and there. Your problem is not nearly that you make a mistake every
once and a while, and you need to be tidied up. The problem is more
pervasive, it​s more comprehensive, it​s deeper, it​s more intractable than
that. And Paul knows that unless you know what he is about to tell you in
these verses you won​t be able to appreciate that. So here are three things
that we learn in the passage. For clarity, verse 12, point 1, our problem.
Verse 13, proof of his point in verse 12, part 1. Verse 14. Proof of his point
of his point in verse 12, part 2. There​s your outline. Three points.

I. Our problem - we sin because we are sinners.

Let​s take the first verse and begin. Verse 12. "Therefore, just as through
one man sin entered into the world and death through sin. And so death
spread to all men because all sinned. What is Paul talking about here?
Paul is telling you what our problem is. And the problem is this. We sin
because we are sinners. Now it​s very important for you to hear what Paul
is saying. We sin because we are sinners. In other words, it is not that we
are sinners because we sin, but rather that we sin because we are sinners.
The problem of our sin is that we are constitutionally sinners. We are
sinners by nature because we are united with Adam. If we are not trusting
in Jesus Christ; and we are human beings, we are united to Christ and we
are constitutionally sinners. And that is the point that Paul is making in
verse 12. We sin because we are sinners. It​s not just because we do certain
sins, we perform certain sins that we are called sinners. It is that those
sins flow from a nature which is itself corrupted by sin at its core. And
you see this in what Paul says in verse 12. Just as through one man​s sin
entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men
because all sinned.

And you​re saying to me I don​t follow that. It sounds like Paul is saying
Adam sinned, death came into the world because of that sin, death spread
to all men because all men individually sinned. That​s not what Paul is
saying. Paul is saying Adam sinned, death invariably accompanies sin and
so the presence of death in the world means that there is sin in the world
which means there is nothing wrong in the world. And, all men were
implicated in that sin and death because of Adam​s sin. See, we could
really translate that passage 'just as one man​s sin entered into the world
and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned in Adam.' Paul​s
point is not to talk here as he did earlier about your particular sins. You
see it would be true if you said because of Adam​s sin, we sin. That​s true.
That​s a true theological statement. I could give you a zillion Scripture
references to back it up. That​s not what Paul​s talking about here. Paul is
saying, you sinned. You, you​re sitting there in the pew, you​re alive, you​re
breathing. You sinned in Adam. Paul​s argument is that sin entered into
the world through sin and death through sin. And death spread because
all sinned in Adam. That is, sinners are united to Adam. He is our head
and our representative. And what he did had implications for us. It​s not
simply that we​re sinful because we do specific sins, it is because we are by
nature sinners. And Paul is arguing here, among other things, that death
in the world is the result of sin, and the proof of the violation of God​s
covenant of works. Paul​s argument is that all have sinned in Adam, not
that they have individually sinned as a consequence of Adam​s sin, though
that​s true, but that they had actually sinned in Adam.

Now I want you to think about this for a moment. I​m not sure whether I
buy that. That looks like he​s talking about the individual sins of people.
Let me give you six passages in this larger passage that make it clear that
Paul is not talking about your individual sins, he​s talking about Adam sin.
First, look at verse 15. In verse 15, Paul says, "For many died by the
trespass of the one man." Notice, he didn​t say the many died because of
their own sins. That might be true, but that​s not what he said. The many
died because of the trespass of one man.

Notice again verse 16. He speaks of the result of the one man​s sin, not the
result of your sins, but the result of the one man​s sin. Notice again second
half of verse 16. He says the judgment followed one sin and brought
condemnation.

In verse 17 he says, "By the trespass of one man, death reigned through
that one man." He doesn​t say through the trespasses of us all sin reigned.
That would be true, but that​s not what he said. Through the trespass of
one man.

Verse 18. The result of the one trespass was condemnation for all men.

In verse 19, through the disobedience of one man, the many were made
sinners. Clearly throughout this passage what is Paul concerned with?
Adam​s sin, and it​s implications for us.

In other words, Paul is saying the problem of sin is far deeper than you
are usually willing to admit. Apart from Christ it is not simply that you
from time to time do things which are out of accord with God​s word. The
problem of sin is that by nature, if you​re not in Christ, by nature you are a
sinner. You have inherited from Adam a sinful nature; but you have also,
because Adam is your representative, been implicated in Adam​s sin. In
other words, Paul is saying this so we will say, "Oh, well no wonder we
can​t save ourselves. We​re involved in something that is so much bigger
than us, so much deeper than our own outward and superficial desires
and actions may be, that we need rescue from the outside.

And Paul is sitting there waiting for you exactly. You do need rescue from
the outside. Your redemption can​t be affected by your turning over a new
leaf. Making a few resolutions, tidying up this and that area of your life
where you have some problems or mistakes or some shortcomings. It​s
more radical than that. It goes to the heart of who you are. It goes to the
heart of the race. It goes to the very first man who stood in as
representation of all men. Adam the representative, Adam, the federal
head. You are guilty in Him.

I know there are a lot of you that are saying, "But that​s not fair." I
understand that. I​ll help you as we work through this passage understand
a little bit more of why this is a just way of God​s working. But consider
this for a moment. Even in the Scripture we have examples of people
standing in and doing things which have implications for the whole of the
people of God. Think of David and Goliath. Now there​s a story that you
learned as a child. And in the story, you remember that the deal was
whoever won the hand-to-hand combat between Goliath and whomever
Israel​s representative was going to be, won the battle. If Goliath won the
battle, the Philistines won the battle. If the representative of Israel won
the battle then Israel won the battle. "Well that​s fair," you might say, but
that was the deal. That​s the way it was.

We see this, of course, in human history, as well. There​s a fascinating

story from the Scottish wars of independence, Robert the Bruce had been
in rebellion against the King of England was the first, and then his son,
Edward II for maybe fifteen years or so. A British army marched north to
Sterling in Scotland and laid siege to the castle. Robert​s army was there.
On the very first day of the battle, Robert was out inspecting his troops.
When Sir Henry De Bohun, who was reckoned by some to be the third
greatest knight in Christendom, and who was in Edward II​s English
army, saw Robert the Bruce out in front of his troops, he said, "This is my
change for glory. I am going to engage Robert the Bruce in hand-to-hand
combat, and I​m going to kill him." So he went charging across the
marshes on this giant horse of his, charging against the King of Scotland.
Now it​s a very interesting story, and I can​t tell you a lot of it. But to make
a long story short, if Robert the Bruce had been killed in that hand-to-
hand combat that day, it would not have been, 'Oh well, the Scottish army
goes home that night and regroups and fights again tomorrow.' That
would have been not only it for the battle, that would have been it for the
Scottish independence because Robert the Bruce was the only claimant to
the throne in Scotland. If he dies, the war of Independence is over. So in
that case, that hand-to-hand combat between the Bruce and De Bohun
was the whole show. Bruce loses, game over. Now hint, he didn​t lose. I​ll
tell you that story later. It​s great. But the point is, what one man did had
implications.

Now we live in the day of genetics. It​s maybe a little less difficult for us to
swallow the fact that somebody can have an impact on you, and you have
no say in it. I have a friend whose family has a genetic eye condition that
is passed along. His children have no say in whether they receive that eye
condition or not. They may or they may not. And they​ll have absolutely
no say in it. And you say, "Well, that​s not fair." Well, I​m not ready to
answer that question yet. We​ll get there. But it is the way it is. We know
this even psychologically. I​m thinking of a friend right now whose father
left his father when he was a little boy. His dad in many ways never, ever
got over that desertion on the part of his father. And it has impacted my
friend profoundly in numerous ways. My friend had nothing to do with
that action. But he was impacted by that action.

Suffice it to say that Paul is saying that you are all impacted by Adam​s
sin. Not only subjectively, so that you follow his objective, but objectively
so that he was your representative. He stood in for you, and as he stood in
for you, and as he rebelled against God, you are implicated in that
rebellion. And you might say, "I don​t like that." Paul says, You shouldn​t
like that. But there​s only one way out of that; and that​s to get a new
representative, and he​s the One that I want to tell you about - Jesus
Christ. But Paul isn​t to that point in his argument yet. What he​s wound
up doing now is convincing you that what he​s already said in verse 12 is
true. And that​s all I want to spend the rest of our time today doing.

II. Proof of the problem, part 1 - Universal sin demonstrates

universal law.
Verse 13 is simply Paul​s proof that what he said in verse 12 is true. Is it
true that we sin because we are sinners? Is it true that we are
constitutionally united with Adam and implicated in his guilt? Paul says,
let me give you two lines of proof that what I have just said is true. First of
all he says, 'for until the law, sin was in the world but sin is not imputed
where there is no law.' In other words, Paul says universal sin
demonstrates universal guilt. Universal sin demonstrates universal law.
Paul says here that there was sin in the world before the giving of Moses​
law. And so there must have been a law to break. You can​t sin, you can​t
transgress unless there is something to transgress. You can​t sin unless
there is a law.

And so Paul is saying, Look, I know that Moses' law was not given until
Sinai, but guess what? We also know that there was sin in the world
before Sinai. You can see it in the lives of the patriarchs. Therefore, there
was a law in the world before Sinai, and it was broken. Sin was in the
world before the giving of Moses​ law, and so there must have been a law
to break. And for Paul, that establishes that all men are under the
covenant of works. God has given a command, all men are to give
obedience to it. All men have been given a command, all men are to give
obedience, they haven​t, they​ve broken the law. They are under that
covenant of works. That​s the first part of his argument. He says you can
look out there in the world, and even the people who have not hear the
law of Moses, sin." That shows that there is a law over them. That shows
that they have an obligation to keep the law. That shows that they have
violated that obligation, and they are guilty. All men are under obligation
to obedience to God because of the covenant of works.
Our Confession of Faith gives a beautiful outline of Paul​s point here in
the sixth chapter. If you take your hymnals out and turn to the back, I
think it​s page 852, look at the top of the page, sections 1 through 4. This
is how The Confession summarizes it: "Our first parents being seduced by
the sublty and temptation of Satan sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.
This their sin God was pleased according to His wise and perfect counsel,
having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin, they fell from
their original righteousness and communion with God. And so became
dead in sin. And wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and
body." Now you might think well, that​s it. They sinned. They bear the
consequences. Look at section 3. "They, being the root of all mankind, the
guilt of this sin was imputed." It was charged to your account. "And the
same death in sin and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity
descending from them by ordinary generation." That​s you and every
other human being except Jesus who did not descend from Adam by
ordinary generation. But was the only, begotten Son of God. And so The
Confession goes on to say, "from this original corruption, whereby we are
utterly indisposed and made opposite to all good and holy and inclined to
all evil, do proceed to all transgressions." In other words The Confession,
which is simply paraphrasing Paul, is saying, "The problem of sin is much
deeper than you​re doing something wrong from time to time. Your
wrongdoing flows from a heart which has been corrupted by sin which
itself flows from the original sin of Adam, which itself is a manifestation
of the fact that you are in Adam, you are under bondage to his judgment.
As he rebelled, you are implicated. That​s part one of Paul​s proof of what
he said in verse 12.

II. Proof of the problem part 2 - Universal reign of death from

Adam to Moses proves the effect of his sin on us. Here​s part two,
look at verse 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses,
even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of
Adam. Here​s proof of the problem, part 2. The universal reign of death
from Adam to Moses proves the effect of Adam​s sin on us. Everyone is
under the penalty of the violated covenant of works. In other words, Paul
is saying that when you look at the Bible, and you look at the time from
Adam to Moses what do you see? Everybody dies. Everybody dies. Now
they haven​t been given the law of Moses until that point. They haven​t
been given that special revelation of the law of God from Moses​ mouth at
Sinai. "But even amongst those who haven​t sinned against that special
revelation, death reigned," Paul says. And that proves the radical and
universal nature of sin. And it proves our solidarity with Adam in sin.
Paul is saying that despite the fact that Moses​ law had not yet been
promulgated, that before the time of Moses, death reigned. And that is an
evidence that Adam​s sin had an impact on everybody. If we are to be
extracted from this predicament, we are not going to be able to do it
ourselves, because we are I involved in a web, in a complex of sin that is
bigger than we are. If we are going to be extracted from this predicament,
we require a mediator who is simultaneously like us and not like us. He is
fully human, but he is without sin, and he comes from outside our
predicament, and not under the bondage of sin which we are in Adam.
And Paul is saying that is precisely what Jesus Christ does. Jesus Christ
comes into the world to redeem people that are in this position. It​s not
just that they need to turn over a new leaf, or make changes in their lives,
or get their act together. That​s not Christianity. Christianity is not doing
your best to make yourself a little better. We​re in a much worse situation
than that.

This is so important to remember in evangelism. I had an evangelism

professor in seminary who said, now look, when you​re evangelizing, don​t
tell people this. Don​t tell them what Paul said in Romans 5. They​ll get all
hung up on it. Talk about their sins. Why, I understand that to a certain
degree, but you understand that Paul is telling you this precisely; because
if you don​t know this, and if you don​t understand it, you won​t be able to
evangelize. Because evangelism is not about getting somebody to switch
from brand X to brand Y. It​s not about you changing your name brand
loyalty. It​s not some sort of a detached decision that you make. You are
involved in the greatest predicament that every existed, and you have not
a clue about how to extract yourself from it nor anyway to effect your
extraction from it. In evangelism we are sharing the message that God
has done something to draw you out of that predicament, unilaterally, by
himself, and you must receive it by faith. That is very, very different than
sort of presenting the merits of one case, and the merits of the other, and
saying, "Okay, it​s up to you now." The consumer approach. I​ve got the
better brand, try it, your life will be better.
Christianity, you see, is not making a new start in life, you see. It​s
receiving a new life to start with. And here in Romans, chapter 5, Paul is
telling you why that is. Because you were involved in such a web of sin
that you that could never extract yourself from it. I​m thinking right now
of a young man reared in an abusive home. His wife has born the marks
of that abuse in his own rebellion. He is the recipient of things which he
himself contributed nothing to. But he now bears the effects of it. If it is
difficult for a counselor to come along side of that young man, and to
bring restoration to his life, how much greater is the difficulty to redeem
a people that are to the very core of their heart involved in a sin which has
been existing and growing in our humanity for 6,000 years. Jesus alone
can redeem that kind of person. Those kinds of people. And Paul is here
to tell you that He can conquer there. But until you appreciate how bad
the fix is, you​ll never see how glorious the fix is to the fix. Let​s pray.

Our Lord and our God, we thank You for Paul​s blunt words. None of us
likes to hear that we are sinners in Adam. None of likes to hear about the
implications of his actions upon us. But at the same time, none of us can
deny those implications. Help us then to flee to the only place for hope,
which is Jesus Christ, who was like us and yet not like us. He was
human in every square inch of what it means to be human, and yet
without sin. And He obeyed the law perfectly, and he bore the penalty of
the law that we might be rescued out from this web of sin. Help us to
then flee to Him. In Jesus​ name we ask it, Amen.

The Covenant of Grace Stands in Bold

Contrast to the Broken Covenant of Works
The Covenant of Grace
Romans 5:15-17

If you have your Bibles, I​d invite you to turn with me to Romans 5, and
look at verse 15. As we do so let me remind you where we have been. We
said last week in Romans 5:12, Paul is beginning a new section of the
book of Romans. He is recapitulating for us. He is actually providing us
the underlying principles, those things which under gird the argument
that He has made from Romans, chapter 1, verse 18, all the way to
Romans, chapter 5, verse 11. He​s trying to show you the things which
under gird this glorious gospel of grace which he​s been explaining to you
during that time. And he is showing us a bigger picture. He​s answering
the question why it is so necessary to be saved by grace, not through
works, to be saved by faith alone in Christ alone, by God​s grace alone.

And we said that as he began this new argument in Romans, chapter 5,

verse 12, that he immediately interrupted himself. You can tell how
excited Paul is in Romans 5, verses 12 to the end of the chapter, because
he interrupts himself repeatedly. In Romans 5:12, he had begun with the
assertion that all men through Adam​s sin were guilty, and that death had
spread throughout the world because of Adam​s sin. And before he can get
his very next phrase out, he pauses and thinks now I know there​s
somebody who​s going to disagree with that. There​s going to be somebody
out there that doesn​t like that. They take issue with it, and so he pauses
and in verses 13 and 14 he explains it. He demonstrates it scripturally. He
goes back to the period of time prior to Moses and prior to the law, and
shows that the principle that he sets forth in Romans 5, verse 12, is
indeed true.

And then he gets to the end of verse 14, and he says something very
interesting. He parallels Adam and Christ. He parallels the Old Covenant
or the covenant of works with the covenant of grace, and he speaks of
Adam as a type of Christ. Notice his words, Adam who is a type of Him
who was to come. It​s almost an after thought. He throws it out there, and
he​s ready to say his next word, and he realizes, ​O that​s going to confuse
some people.​ So he stops and in verses 15, 16 and 17, he wants to explain
some ways in which Christ is different from Adam. He​s just asserted that
there are certain parallels between Adam and Christ. Indeed, he has
asserted that Adam himself was a foreshadowing in some ways of Jesus
Christ. But the minute that He says that, he says, you know, I​ve got to
qualify that. I​ve got to show you three ways in which Adam is not like
Christ, and in which Christ is much greater than Adam and in which the
covenant of works stands in, or the covenant of grace stands in bold
contrast with the covenant of works.

Now you remember the reason that Paul has been doing this all along is
to show us why salvation by works just won​t work. Especially that was the
focus of what he said in verses 12 through 14. Now in verses 15 through
17, indeed we can say in the whole of this section, he is concerned that
our assurance of salvation would be grounded in what God has done in
His covenant of grace, and not in our own righteousness. If it​s found in
our righteousness, we​ll never be assured; and if it​s truly grounded in our
righteousness, our acceptance with God will be secure. And so Paul is
concerned that we see the big picture, that we see this web of sin that
we​re involved in, but that we also see the greatness of God​s grace in Jesus
Christ. So let​s study this passage together. Let​s hear God​s holy word
beginning in verse 15:

"But, the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression
of the one, the many die. Much more did the grace of God, and the gift by
the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift
is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For on the one
hand the judgment arose from one transgression, resulting in
condemnation. But on the other hand, the free gift arose from many
transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the
one, death reigned through the one. Much more those who receive the
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life
through the one, Jesus Christ."

Amen, and thus ends this reading of God​s holy and inspired and inerrant
Word. May He add His blessing to it.

Our Father, we thank You for this word. We pray that you would teach us
by Your Holy Spirit what You mean, for as deep and as profound as are
Paul​s words. He wrote them us not to impress us with his grasp of your
ultimate truth, but to comfort us with that truth, and especially with the
reality of Your grace, as such he meant to be understood. By Your spirit,
help us to understand and to respond accordingly. In Jesus name, Amen.

What​s so amazing about grace? A recent author has asked that question
in his book title. Another recent Christian author has suggested that we
need to put amazing back into grace. Both of them are, I think, are
echoing the same sentiments. It seems that the Christian church in our
time doesn​t think that grace is that amazing. Grace is rather blasй. Grace
is almost expected by many Christians today. It​s our right. God has to
show grace. There is nothing surprising about grace. Well, of course, God
forgives. Of course, God shows mercy. Of course, God grants grace. That​s
His job, after all. That seems to be the attitude. The apostle Paul in this
passage is undercutting that attitude, not to be a spoiler, not to be an ogre
to rain on our parade, but precisely in order that we might know the
blessing of true grace. Because, as the apostle Paul will tell us in this
passage, it​s utterly amazing, it​s utterly surprising, it​s utterly unexpected,
and it​s greater than anything you​ve ever imagined. And he​s calling those
who are doubters to realize that. And he​s calling on those who don​t know
the grace of Christ to taste of it, because there​s nothing in the world like
it.

And in this passage he underscores the glory of grace. The glory of what
Christ has done in three ways. He makes three distinctions between what
Adam did and what Christ has done in order to underscore for us the
glory of grace, to drive us away from dependence upon our own works,
and to woo us to trust in Christ alone. And I​d like to tell you those three
distinctions, just to help out lying in our own minds a passage which can
be difficult. After all, the run on sentence here can leave your mind
spinning. And let me outline those three distinctions, and then we​ll come
back to them, and see how Paul deploys them in his argument.

In verse 15, you​ll see the first distinction, the first discontinuity between
Adam and Christ. The first distinction is between God​s justice in
condemnation, and God​s grace in redemption. And that way the covenant
of works and the covenant of grace are totally different.

The second distinction, or just continuity, you​ll find in verse 16. There
Paul emphasizes that through one man​s sin came death for all. Whereas,
on the other hand, in the covenant of grace, many sins were covered by
the righteousness of one man.

And then thirdly in verse 17, the third contrast or distinction or

discontinuity between Adam and Christ is this. One man​s sin led to the
reign of death, Paul emphasizes. On the other hand, one man​s death led
to his people​s reign in life. Those are the three distinctions, the three
differences that Paul wants to highlight between the work of Adam and
the work of Christ.

Why does he want to underscore this? So you​ll understand how amazing

grace is. And so that you​ll understand that what he is saying to you is not
this: what was lost in Adam, was regained in Christ. You see, that​s almost
a parallel, isn​t it? What was lost to Adam, is regained in Christ. As far as
Paul is concerned, the story of redemption, the story of redemption, the
story of salvation, the story of God​s grace is better than that. And it is that
what God has done in His covenant of grace is beyond all that we could
ask or imagine, and it so far outstrips what was lost in the covenant of
works as it was broken in Adam that it will blow your mind to think about
it. And he walks you through that argument in three parts. I​d like to look
with you briefly this morning at each of these parts of his argument.

I. The free gift is not like the transgression.

First, in verse 15, the free gift is not like the transgression, he says. For if
by the transgression of one, the many die, much more did the grace of
God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abound to the
many. In other words, what Paul is saying is that universal judgment is
not surprising. God​s universal condemnation is not surprising. God​s
universal judgment is in fact warranted by the fact. There is absolutely
nothing surprising about the bad news. There is nothing surprising about
the condemnation to hell of men and women who have rebelled against
God. There​s nothing surprising about that, Paul says. It​s deserved. It​s
warranted. But salvation, even the salvation of one single, solitary soul is
gratuitous, it​s undeserved, it​s unearned, it​s surprising, it​s amazing.

Now friends, very frankly, that​s totally opposite from the way we think in
our day and age. We think of salvation as an entitlement. We think that
one person, separated from God and held for eternity, calls into question
God​s justice and His goodness. The apostle Paul begs to differ. Paul sees
the other way around. Paul says that because of Adam​s transgression, all
deservedly die. But because of what Christ did, everyone in Him becomes
the undeserving recipients of God​s grace.
Paul is deploying a much more extensive argument here. He is not just
saying that what was lost through Adam was regained in Christ. No, he is
saying more than that. He is saying that the gift of grace in Christ is
incomparably greater than the condemnation which resulted from Adam​s
sin. He gives us an escalating contrast. If all received the just sentence of
death because of Adam, he argues, how much more is it true that all have
received the super abundance in God​s grace in Jesus Christ. Whereas,
one sin led to the consequence of universal death, and that death was
justified, so also the righteousness of Christ led to grace super abounding,
but grace which was undeserved, unearned, unwarranted by anything in
us. And the apostle Paul wants you to see that this continuity from the
judgment that has been visited on us because of Adam​s sin, and the grace
that has been shown us by Jesus Christ. As far as the apostle Paul is
concerned, it makes perfect sense that people go to hell.

Perhaps you have run into someone who thinks it​s unfair that God would
send anyone to hell: "Well, I call into question any God that would send
someone to hell." And the apostle Paul comes back to them, and he
basically says, "Look, if you​re going to complain about something being
unfair, you​re going to have to complain about heaven and grace." That​s
unfair. That​s unwarranted. The pardon that God gives to us to open up
the gates of glory, that​s unfair.

We​ve been thinking a lot about pardons recently, haven​t we? On the last
day of our former President​s presidency, he managed to stir up another
controversy. And the Mark Rich pardon has obtained a great deal of
discussion and scrutiny and criticism. And there are a lot of reasons for
that. There​s the question is there a quid pro quo here, and furthermore
there is the question that this man is a fugitive of justice. He was under
indictment, with a great weight of evidence for the embezzlement of
millions of dollars which belong to individuals and the United States
government. He was engaged in activity that was immoral at best with the
enemy, according to the indictment. He fled authorities as he was almost
in their grasp, he went to another country, and there are a lot of question.
What is the warrant for this pardon? What justifies pardoning a man like
this?
And I want you to understand that what Paul is saying is that Mark Rich​s
pardon is child​s play compared to the pardon that God gave to you. Paul
is saying, there is absolutely no warrant in you whatsoever for God to
pardon you. And that​s what He did in Jesus Christ. There​s nothing in
your that commends yourself to a received pardon from the almighty
God. And yet God has pardoned us. So if you​re going to complain about
something being unfair, then it​s heaven and grace that you​re going to
have to complain about. You​re going to have to complain that God let
somebody in. If you​re looking for human warrant, that​s the only place
that you​ll be able to complain against God. That​s how great God​s
salvation is. That​s how great God​s grace is.

II. One man​s sin leads to death for all.

But Paul​s not finished yet. Look at verse 16. Here he argues again. The
free gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. In the
first discontinuity, Paul contrasts God​s justice and God​s grace. God​s
justice is deserved when we are condemned. God​s grace is not deserved
when we are pardoned. We haven​t contributed anything to the deserving
of that grace. Here however, he focuses on the implications of Adam​s sin,
one man​s sin leads to death for all, whereas in God​s covenant of grace,
many sins are covered by one man​s righteousness. In other words, Paul
says that Adam​s sin had race-wide implications. Everybody in the human
race was involved, was implicated, was corrupted and deserved justice
because of Adam​s sin, whereas, in contrast many, many, many iniquities,
and by the way that​s an understatement, not a hyperbole, were covered
by Jesus Christ. Because of Adam​s transgression, because of one sin, all
were judged and condemned Paul argues in verse 16. But in spite of
millions of sins in the covenant of grace, Christ the one man, his
righteousness caused all who were in him to be acquitted. So Paul​s
second contrast focuses on the consequences of Adam​s actions in
distinction from the consequences of Christ​s free gift. Adam​s
transgression, his deliberate transgression of God​s law, his rebellion
against God​s will led to a just judgment in condemnation. But in contrast
to this, on the contrary, the sins of all who believe in Christ are forgiven
and their persons are justified and acquitted and pardoned by free gift
and grant.
And think of this for a minute, it makes perfect sense to us to see how one
iniquity can spread and ruin. Husbands, I know this has happened to you
before. You walk in the house. One sinful cross word to your wife, and
suddenly you are looking at three weeks of tension, because one thing
leads to another, which leads to another, which leads to another thing,
which leads to another thing, and it all just breaks apart. We are familiar
with how one sin disrupts a relationship. Paul says, there​s nothing
surprising about that. There​s nothing surprising about judgment and
condemnation flowing from the sin of Adam. But what is totally
surprising is this picture of millions and millions and millions of sins.
And suddenly, because of the superabundance of God​s grace, the pattern
of sin is disrupted, and the pattern of condemnation is broken, and these
people are acquitted and justified.

Perhaps you have friends whose lives are in shambles because of sin.
Maybe it​s because they have sinned themselves. Maybe it​s because they
have been sinned against someone else. And the apostle Paul says, you
know it​s the most surprising thing in the world when I look out, and I see
God​s grace reverse the effects of sin. You think of it. Adam is the only
person in the history of the world who was an appropriate scapegoat in
his life. Would you have liked to have been Adam living another 900
years after the fall. Hmmm, it would be pretty nice to live 900 years. But
think about this: everywhere you go, somebody can point to you and say,
"You know, this is all his fault. It​s all his fault. He messed up. He got us in
this mess." And Paul says, "You know, that​s true, but think of the
contrast. A hundred and fifty generations of generational sin and
corruption reversed by the grace of God in Jesus Christ." You see it​s not
just that Jesus Christ has put the lid back on Pandora​s Box. It​s better
than that. He​s liquidated our debt. He​s absorbed our penalty. He​s
acquitted us in court, and He​s transformed our hearts by grace. He has
put a stop to the incessant seemingly immutable pattern of sin and
judgment and condemnation. And Paul says that​s surprising. You want to
find something to be surprised about, don​t be surprised about sin in a
fallen world. There​s nothing surprising about that. What​s surprising is
about the transforming grace of God.

III. Christ​s righteousness leads to life for believers

Thirdly, he goes on to argue in verse 17. There​s another difference
between what Christ has done in the covenant of grace, and what was
done by Adam in the broken covenant of works. One man​s sin led to the
reign of death. That​s what happened to Adam. But in bold contrast, one
man​s death led to His people​s reign in life. Adam​s transgression led to
the reign to death overall. But Christ​s righteousness led to believer​s reign
in life. The reign of death in this world, can be traced to Adam. Paul is
telling us that believers here and now, as well as then and there, reign in
life in Christ. Paul​s third contrast compares the reign of death through
Adam​s sin, with the reign of life with those who trust in Christ.

Now let me pause right here and draw your attention to two terms that
are very important for you to understand. Throughout this passage you
will see Paul use the terms "all" and "many." Does he mean something
different by those terms. The answer is no. The words all and many in
this passage are interchangeable as far as the apostle Paul is concerned.
They are stressing two aspects of the same truth.

Let me prove my point. Look at verse 15. There it says by the

transgression of the one, the many died. Now, does Paul mean that by
Adam​s sin some people died, but not all people? Is that why he uses
many there. No. Go back and look at verse 12. Through one man, sin
entered into the world and death spread to all men. All in verse 12, and
many in verse 15 are parallel. Paul will use many in this passage to stress
the amazing multiplying effect of sin; even though it was one sin, many
are impacted. He​s not saying many, but not all. He is saying, "Isn​t it
amazing that one sin can wreak this kind of destruction?" But the parallel
between many and all is exact. Now, why do I raise that point? Because
there are many well-meaning people who come to this passage and say,
"Well, you know it says that all die because of that one sin, and it says
that the many died by that one sin, and it says that all were justified by
Christ, and the many were justified by Christ. So I guess what this
passage is teaching is that everybody is saved." In other words, many
people come to this passage and say, "Aha, Paul is teaching is teaching
the doctrine of universalism here. Everybody is justly condemned, but
everybody is also justified and saved through the work of Jesus Christ.
And, therefore, they say to us it​s our job as Christians not to go out and
say repent and be saved. It is our job as Christians to go out and say,
​Look, you​re already saved.​ God​s already saved everyone. The gospel is to
announce to everyone that they​re already saved." I want to tell you, my
friends, that is a lie from the pit of hell, and people who tell you that are
wolves in sheep​s clothing. Universalism is absolutely false biblically and
even this passage shows it. Let​s look.

Verse 17 lets you know that Paul is not saying ​all are saved.​ Paul is not
establishing universalism 2000 years ahead of time. Paul is not telling us
go out and tell everybody they are already saved. Look at verse 17. "For if
by the transgression of the one, death reigns through the one, much more
those who receive the abundance of grace. And of the gift of
righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ." You see,
the apostle Paul does not say the sin of Adam resulted in the reign of
death overall and the righteousness of Christ resulted in the reign of life
over all. That​s not what he said at all, is it? The parallel is this. The sin of
Adam led to the reign of death overall. The righteousness of Christ led to
all those who receive Him reigning in life by His grace. That​s the parallel.
Those who receive Him are the ones who participate in this great gift.
Those who receive Him by faith alone as He has offered in the gospel.
Now of course, that​s not Paul​s prime point in this passage, but it is a
truth which is invariably and unavoidably, appropriately and rightly
deduced from this passage.

Paul​s point, however, in this passage is to show you that whereas sin and
judgment and death are inevitable, the super abundance of God​s grace is
the most surprising thing in the world. We see the grace of God
abounding when we see sinners reigning in this life, by faith in Jesus
Christ, because of the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Think of the woman at the well. Here​s a woman with five former
husbands who​s living with a man. And her timing is so perfect that she
ends up standing next to the only sinless human being that ever lived.
And she is out at the well at a time of day when nobody would have been
drawing water. And why is she there? Because she knows that if she were
there with the other women, they wouldn​t have talked to her. They would
have talked about her. And suddenly she is standing there before the King
of Kings, the water of life. And suddenly her life is changed. And His
grace takes over. And suddenly she is back in her little hometown and
everybody is going, "What has happened to her? She has changed. What
has happened?" I​ll tell you what​s happened. The reign of grace. It​s not
like the sin of Adam. It​s unbelievable. It reverses generational patterns of
sin. It gives newness of life. Think of Paul, he was a Christian hunter. He
loved to see Christians captive imprisoned and killed. He held the cloaks
while Stephen was stoned to death. And suddenly there he is, he​s on the
road to Damascus, and his life is changed. He​s made to be an emissary
for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace changes things. It​s not like the sin of Adam. That makes perfect
sense, the pernicious influence and corruption of sin, but grace, it​s the
most surprising thing in the world. It​s also the most unexpected thing in
the world. Maybe you​re here today, and you​ve been blasй about grace,
and you​ve forgotten about that initial excitement about the freshness of
God​s mercy to you in Jesus Christ. Maybe you need to be reminded just
how amazing God​s grace is. And Paul is waiting for you. And he​s saying
to you, "Christian, you need to sing the doxology for God​s grace." Let​s
pray.

Our Lord and our God, there​s nothing like Your grace, and we take it for
granted. We underestimate our sin. We overestimate what we deserve.
We are arrogant before You. We stand before You in our own pride, and
we think that we can earn Your love. And we forget the words of Isaiah
that You dwell in unapproachable light, You are high and lifted up, and
yet at the same time You dwell with those who are humble, those who are
lowly in heart. As we are humbled by Your word in this very passage, so
exalt Yourself and exalt all those who humble themselves before You,
trusting by faith in Jesus Christ and resting in His righteousness alone
for salvation. We​ll give you all the praise and all the glory. In Jesus
name, Amen.

The Parallels Between the Broken Covenant

of Works and the Covenant of Grace
Romans 5:18-19
The Parallels Between the Broken Covenant of Works and the Covenant
of Grace

If you have your Bibles, I​d invite you to turn with me to Romans, chapter
5. We​re going to be looking at verses 18 and 19, but let me ask you to
allow your eyes to roam back to verse 12, because you will remember that
in verse 12 Paul began a sentence which he did not complete. There is a
"just as" for which there is no "so also" in verse 12. In fact the apostle
interrupted himself mid-sentence to tell you two very important things.
One thing he wanted to tell you in verses 13 and 14, another thing he
wanted to tell you in verses 15 through 17. Having accomplished his
purpose in telling you those two things before he completed his sentence,
in verse 18 he now goes back to his original sentence in verse 12, phrases
it slightly different and completes it. That​s where we are today. Let​s hear
God​s holy word. Romans, chapter 5, verse 18:

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all

men. Even so through one act of righteousness, there resulted
justification of life to all men. For as through the one man​s disobedience,
the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one,
the many will be made righteous."

Amen, and thus ends this reading of God​s holy and inspired word. May
He add His blessing to it. Let​s pray.

Our Lord, the sentences of this word are dense with truth, but clear as
day. By Your spirit help us to understand and to respond to them in
faith, belief, obedience and gratitude. In Jesus​ name, Amen.

The apostle Paul we have said from Romans, chapter 1, verse 16 all the
way to Romans, chapter 5, verse 11 has been laying the groundwork for
explaining why it was that salvation was by grace alone, or more
particularly, why we are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ
alone; why we are justified by God​s grace through the alone instrument of
our believing on Jesus Christ as He is offered in the gospel. And when he
gets to Romans, chapter 5, verse 12 he begins a new section of the book.
In that section, which will run all the way to the end of chapter 8, he is
concerned to pull back and give you a deeper, a broader background and
understanding for what he has taught you so far. He​s not merely
repeating himself, he​s not merely recapitulating what he​s already said,
he​s actually pulling back and saying, "Let me explain to you some of the
underlying reasons for the purposes of God and why salvation has to be
this way. Why it is that you can​t save yourself. Why it is that you
contribute nothing of your own righteousness to your standing of
righteousness before God. Why it is that you have to look away from your
works and to look to Jesus Christ."

And so beginning in Romans, chapter 5, verse 12, he wants to explain to

you the parallels which exist between Adam and Christ, our first head,
our federal representative, Adam, who fell in his rebellion against God
from the state of righteousness and grace which God had blessed him
with. And he wants to compare Adam to Jesus Christ so that we might
understand, first of all, something of the web of sin that we​re involved in,
and also some reason again for why we need to flee to Christ alone for
salvation.

But before will discuss those parallels between Adam and Christ, he
wants to explain a couple of other things, especially the discontinuities
between Adam and Christ. He wants it to be very clear that Christ, in
what He does to save us, is far more glorious and the fruit of it is far more
glorious in comparison to Adam than the work that Adam did to bring us
into this situation, and the situation which we actually find ourselves in.
In other words you can​t talk about Adam and Christ and compare them
without drawing out the bold contrast that exists between them. And
that​s exactly what he did in verses 15 through 17.

Having done that, however, he now goes back to discuss the continuities
or parallels between Adam and Christ. To put it another way, the parallels
between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace here in verses
18 and 19.

Now you will appreciate this passage more if you will remember once
more the audience context in which Paul is speaking this. Remember who
the people are that are Paul​s opponents. Paul has Jewish opponents and
professing Christians who he will call the Judaizers. Those who will say
that at some level our individual righteousness must commend us to God
in salvation, either through the ceremonial law, or through our keeping of
the moral law. Some of them said, 'Well Christ saves you, but it​s Christ
plus circumcision.' And others said, 'Well yes, Christ saves you, but it​s
Christ keeping the ceremonial law of Moses.' And others were saying,
'Yes, but it​s Christ plus keeping the Ten Commandments. You have to
add some of your own obedience, some of your own moral rectitude in
order to commend yourself to God.' In other words, a theology of plus
pervaded the thinking of Paul​s opponents. They thought Christ plus this,
equals salvation. And what Paul wants to press upon them is that it is
Christ alone who brings our salvation, and it is faith alone in what He has
done alone that brings to us our right standing before God.

And so Paul, when he goes to this analogy between Adam and Christ;
when he explains to us the covenant of works and the covenant of grace
here in Romans, chapter 5, verse 12-19, is doing it in order to set at
naught misconceptions of the right way of salvation.

Now having said that as introduction, I simply want to walk you through
three things in this passage today. There​s a lot of truth in this passage,
and we can​t cover it all. But we can cover some of it. I​d like to do it using
these three categories. Your predicament, your culpability, and your only
hope. Hang your hat on those three things as an outline for what we​re
going to look at today. And then permit me to make one or two or three
digressions along the away, and I think we​ll have some sort of a grasp of
this passage.

I. If you are counting on your own works for salvation, you are
in a hopeless position. - Your predicament.
First of all, let​s start in verse 18, the first half of the verse, and let​s look at
your predicament. The apostle Paul makes it clear in verse 18 again that if
you are trusting in your works in any way for your salvation, you are in a
hopeless position. Paul in verse 18 begins to restate the case that he had
made in verse 12. Everything in between, from verses 13 through 17,
consist of the two qualifications he wanted to make about what he was
about to say. But see this parallel, it​s very clear. Look up at verse 12, you
will see a "just as" in verse 12, but you​ll never see a "so also." You​ll see
protasis, but no apodosis for any of you grammarians out there. You​ll see
a "just as" and a clause associated with it, but you​ll not see a "so also," a
responding, an ending clause, a concluding clause of the article. But if
you look down in verse 18, you​ll see that in the first half of the verse, Paul
virtually restates what he had said in verse 12. So then, as through one
transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men. The "so then"
could also be translated "consequently," "therefore," or "just as." 'So then'
is the perfectly good word for it.

But notice the perfect parallel. As through one transgression there

resulted condemnation to all. Now look back at verse 12, just as through
one man​s sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men. Notice the parallel. What you have in verse 18 that you
didn​t have in verse 10 is the "so also." Read ahead in verse 12: Even so,
through the act of righteousness, through one act of righteousness, there
is also justification of life to all men. So Paul is resuming his argument
here in verse 18.

But in the beginning of this verse, and that​s what I want you to
concentrate on for a moment, Paul is asserting again that Adam​s one
original sin resulted in the condemnation of all men. In other words, he is
asserting that Adam was our representative. He was our federal head.
And that his original sin had consequences for us.

Now again, before you argue with that, let​s get one thing clear first. Here​s
what Paul is saying. Separate two questions. Some of you are saying,
"That​s not fair." I know that. And I promise that I will give you an answer
for that today, God willing. But before you get to the 'that​s not fair,' let​s
first think about what Paul is saying, because before you get to verse 18,
six times Paul says the same thing. Walk me through the passage
beginning at verse 12.

Six times Paul reiterates that Adam​s sin impacts not only you, some of
you, but all of you, all of us. All of us are involved in the guilty and
condemnation of Adam​s sin. Look at verse 12: "Through one man, sin
entered into the world." Look at it again. You​re saying, "That's not fair."
Well, hold on. Through one man, sin entered into the world. Look again,
verse 12: "Through one man death through sin entered the world." Look
again, verse 12: Through one man death spread to all men because one
man sinned through Adam is the implication there. Look at verse 15, "By
the transgression of the one, the many died." Look again, verse 16: "The
judgment arose, (that is the judgment of all of us) from the one
transgression resulting in condemnation of us all. And again in verse 17:
"If by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one." You
see in all of these clauses, Paul is stressing that one man​s sin, Adam​s,
impacted everybody. He stressing not just the doctrine of original sin that
Adam had rebelled, but he​s stressing the doctrine of the imputation of
Adam​s original sin to everybody in the human race. That is, in some way
we bear a responsibility for that sin.

And look at the progression of Paul​s thought. Adam​s sin resulted in

what? Sin in the world, death in the world, judgment in the world,
condemnation in the world, the reign of death in the world, and
ultimately the condemnation of us all. So Paul here is focusing us on the
one act of Adam as the problem for us all.

Now the reason he is doing that you will see, I hope later one, when we
parallel what he says about justification. Because just as he says one act
got us into this mess, one act, and one act only, can get us out of this
mess. Now, that​s very important because Paul is speaking to people who
think that in order to be right with God they​ve to do certain things.
They​ve got to do this ritual, they​ve to obey this command. They​ve got to
commend themselves to God. And what​s Paul trying to do? He​s trying to
draw their attention away from their singular acts, from their individual
acts, from their individual righteousness, to think about one act, one
obedience, one righteousness done by Jesus Christ. So this is one reason
why Paul is doing this Adam-Christ parallel. In other words, the one place
to look for salvation is not our own works, or the works of other men even
saintly men. But to the one man, the right man, Jesus Christ.

Now let me also say in passing, seemingly problematically, Paul does an

interesting parallel in this passage. That is a parallel of two alls. Look at
verse 18, the whole verse. He says, "Through one transgression there
resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of
righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Now once
again, we​re back to that universalism thing. Is Paul teaching that
everybody is saved? Our job is just to announce it. Everybody is saved.
Why bother? Close up the church doors at home. We​re all saved. Why
bother? It looks like condemnation to all men, justification of life to all
men.

Well, three reasons why Paul is not teaching that salvation has a universal
scope or that the work of Christ results in the actual salvation of all men.
First and foremost, Paul throughout the book of Romans has made it
clear that salvation is for believers, and believers only. Think of Romans
1: 16 and 17 where he makes this point. Salvation is for those who believe.
To the Jew first and also to the Greek, "To them that receive the gospel."
As they believe in it. Think again of Romans, chapter 3, verses 21 through
26. Who is it who receives the benefits of Jesus​ atoning work? Those who
believe on Him. Those who exercise faith in Him.

Secondly, in this very passage we saw last week in verse 17, that Paul
stresses that Christ​s salvation is not for every last person that ever lived.
It is for whom? For those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift
of righteousness. This salvation must be received by faith. In this very
passage, in other words, Paul makes it clear that the salvation of Jesus
Christ does not extend to every last person, but to those who receive that
salvation by faith.

And finally, if we were to look at I Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 22 and

23, we would find a verse that is very similar to Romans 5:18. That verse
says, "As in Adam, all die; so in Christ all shall be made alive." So there
again is that all parallel. But if you look at verse 23, you will see that Paul
parallels all with something. What is that something? In I Corinthians
15:23 that something is those who are Christ​s. So the all of salvation
parallels with what? With those who are Christ​s, those who belong to
Christ, those who belong to Him by faith, those who have trusted in Him.
So Paul is not teaching in this passage that all are condemned, and all are
saved, speaking of every last person that ever lived.

Well then, you say, why then is he saying the word all? Isn​t that a little
confusing? Well, that​s a very good question, and I think I​ve got an answer
for you. And it has to do with the very point that Paul is making. Paul is
talking to Jewish folk who think that in order to be saved, you​ve got to
become like them. And Paul is saying, "No, no, no. Salvation is for all,
Jew and Greek; slave and free, male and female." The Jewishness of this
thing means nothing. And so Paul​s stress on all men is beautiful because
he​s saying all of us are condemned, and all of us have only one hope, and
that is Jesus Christ and saving faith in Him. The reality of the broken
covenant of works and the consequences that lie behind it, remind us of
our inability to save ourselves. Paul in this passage is telling us about our
predicament. All of us are involved in the sin of Adam. All of us are
accountable to God for it. All of us are guilty for it, Paul says.

II. If you are counting on your own works for salvation, you are
in a hopeless position - Your culpability.
Now there​s a second thing I​d like to see here. Now Paul not only speaks
about our predicament, he speaks about our culpability. We are justly
condemned because we are responsible in our sin to God. So we are not
only in a predicament, we are personally culpable. You see, a lot of people
hear that Adam brought sin into the world, or Adam​s sin brought sin into
the world, and they think, "Well, that​s not fair. Poor, innocent me. Poor
innocent me, being caught up in this wicked thing that Adam has done."
But Paul here says, "No, under the covenant of works, there is not only
universal condemnation because we​re in union with Adam, in the
covenant of works there is universal sinnerhood by virtue of our union
with Adam.

Paul in this passage, stresses two more things. Look at the first part of 19.
First, I​d like you to see that he stresses the nature of Adam​s sin. Have you
noticed in this passage Paul uses three words to describe Adam​s sin:
Transgression, trespass, and disobedience. Now why is Paul using three
different terms to describe Adam​s sin? Basically because Paul wants to
sum up for you that Adam broke God​s law in about every way you could
break it when he sinned against Him. It was transgression, that is, he
crossed the line that God told him not to cross. He broke his command.
God gave him an express command, and Adam broke that command. It
was transgression. It was trespass in that Adam not only broke God​s
commandment, but he did positively what God has explicitly and
specifically, negatively told him not to do. It​s just like the little boys, who
want to go hunting on somebody else​s property. They don​t have
permission. The sign up there says "No Trespassing." They go right past
the sign on the ground, they did exactly what the sign and the law told
them not to do. So it​s not just breaking the law, it​s breaking of an explicit
prohibition. Don​t do it, but he does it. Thirdly, it​s disobedience. In other
words, Paul is saying it was willful. Adam didn​t stumble into this. He
wasn​t tricked into this. Eve did not seduce him into this sin. Adam did, as
Paul tells us as in II Timothy 2, Adam did exactly what he wanted to do.
He knew exactly what he was doing.

So the apostle Paul is saying that Adam involved himself in sin in just
about every way you can involve yourself in sin all at once. And as a
result, that kind of sin nature pervades our race. Paul has already
described it in you, especially at the end of chapter 1, chapter 2 and the
beginning of chapter 3. Really, from 1:18 all the way to 3:20 Paul has
been showing you that you were a sinner. He​s saying to you here, "Now
don​t forget, you are a sinner." Don​t say, ​Oh Paul, you​re saying the
opposite of what the prophet is saying.​" You remember Isaiah and the
late prophets often said to Israel, don​t say, "The fathers have eaten sour
grapes and the children​s teeth are set on edge." In other words don​t say,
"Heavenly Father, our spiritual forefathers were wicked and evil and they
did bad things, and we​re paying the consequences for it. Poor innocent
us." The prophets told the people of Israel, don​t do that because God was
going to judge them for their own sins. And you can see somebody saying
to Paul, "Well Paul, you​re saying the same thing. You​re saying, ​Here we
are Adam did something and we​re responsible for it.​" And Paul says, "Uh,
uh, uh, you​re a sinner." In every aspect of it you​re a sinner." But He​s not
done.

There​s a second thing. You not only see the nature of Adam​s sin here, but
you see the fact of our sinnerhood. Notice the words. Look at verse 18 and
then look at the parallel in verse 19: " As through one transgression there
resulted condemnation to all men." Now when he says that all men are
condemned, all he​s doing is summing up what he said so far. In verse 19,
he says something a little more: "For as through one man​s disobedience,
the many were made sinners." Paul says, ​Through Adam​s sin, you not
only became representative sinful, you became actually sinful. God​s
condemnation is just.​
Now you​re still asking yourself, I still don​t understand this whole
imputation thing. I don​t understand how it is that Adam does something
and it​s imputed to me. I don​t understand how he can be my
representative. And that sin can be imputed ​ I don​t understand this
whole representative principle. It​s not fair. Let me give you an answer to
that. I​d like to divide my answer in two parts.

First, I​d like to speak to believers. Believers that are just scratching their
heads and wondering, "I just can​t make sense of this. Help me." Then, I​d
like to address unbelievers because is in a congregation of this size there
have got to be a skeptics who are saying. "You know, you Christians, will
fall for anything. I​ve got a couple of things I​d like to say to you."

So, let​s start off with the believers. Believers, I​ve got five answers I​d like
to give you to that question. How is it that it is fair? What are the reasons
that we have for believing that the imputation of Adam​s sin is fair, that it
is fair for Adam to be our federal representative. What are the reasons
that we have for accepting and assuming it to be fair even if we don​t
understand it all? Five of them.

First, think of it friends, God was gracious in the way that He arranged
the covenant of works in give Adam to us as our federal representative.
Have you ever seen these half-time contests in college and professional
football or basketball or baseball games where in-between innings or
halves or quarters, they will bring out some person who won a drawing,
and they​ll either throw a football or they​ll shoot a basket or they​ll hit a
long put, or they​ll do something extraordinary and win a million dollars.
You know, a guy has to stand at the fifty-yard line and throw ten straight
passes through this shape, this thing fifty yards down the field. Okay, well
in giving Adam as our representative, it would be like you​re in a million-
dollar contest at half time of the national championship game in April.
And God says, "Look, you​re not going to have to take this shot in order to
win salvation. I​m going to bring out Michael Jordan for you. I​m going to
let Michael Jordan take that forty-five foot jump shot for you. Or, you​ve
got to sink a put from the fairway. I​m going to bring out Tiger Woods to
take that shot for you. I​m going to let him hack away at that ball on your
behalf. When God gives you Adam, as your representative, he is giving
someone of extraordinary capacities that you could hardly even grasp. He
is an optimal representative. Aristotle is but the rubbish of fallen Adam,
who is the greatest intellect that ever lived in the history of the world,
until Jesus Christ. You can​t even concede what an unfallen human being
has with regard to intellectual and moral potential. That​s your
representative. And so God was generous even in the construction of the
covenant of works. You might say, "Well, I would have done better." Well
you​re a sinner, and you can​t even think about it. You can​t even think
about how you would have functioned as a non-sinful person. You can​t
even get out of yourself to think in those categories. And so God was
gracious in the way that He constructed this. He gave us this optimal
representative in Adam, and even Adam failed.

Secondly, why is it that the imputation of Adam​s sin is fair? Because God
shows meticulous concern for justice in His covenant of grace. Think
about it. In the way that God goes about saving us through Jesus Christ,
He shows meticulous concern for justice. He doesn​t say, "Okay, look, I​m
going to sweep those sins under the closet. It​s kind of the good ole boys
club, where you messed up, and they say ah, we​re going to just forget it
this time." God says, "Okay, I love you so much that My Son is going to
bear your sin. Why does He do this? Because He is concerned for justice
and fairness. So if, in the way of grace, God is concerned for fairness and
justice, is it not reasonable to work back to the fact that in the original
relationship that He has sustained with man, that He was concerned with
fairness and justice? And in that original relationship, what did He do?
He appointed Adam as our representative as the representative of all
humanity. It​s clear that the covenant of grace and imputation is fair. And,
therefore, looking back, you can see that the covenant of works is fair.

I remember being in seminary and a young man was arguing this point
with a professor. We had been studying the imputation of Adam​s sin, but
we hadn​t gotten yet to the imputation of Christ​s righteousness. In other
words, we had been talking about the fact that we were constituted
sinners in Adam, but we hadn​t yet been talking about the fact that we
were constituted as righteous in Jesus Christ. And the young man started
arguing with the professor. He said, "It​s not fair, I didn​t exist when Adam
was brought into being in this world. Adam died at least 6,000 years
before I was brought into being. It​s not fair that what he did would
impact me. And the professor said, "Well, let me ask you this. Do you
believe in Jesus Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in Christ alone for
salvation? Absolutely. Do you trust in what Jesus did and was for your
salvation? Yes. Let me ask you a question. Were you alive when Jesus was
alive? Um, no. Did you exist when Jesus came to this earth to live and die
on your behalf? No. Is Jesus​ righteousness imputed to you. Yes. I don​t
know what you​re complaining about." You get the point. You​re willing to
accept the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but you​ve
got real problems with the imputation of this Adam​s sin business. You
didn​t even exist when he did. You didn​t exist when Christ did what He
did, but you know what? Paul in this passage is going to tell you that if
you​re a believer, you are clothed in His righteous. So working back from
the covenant of grace, to the covenant of works is another indication that
it is fair.

Thirdly, there are biblical patterns that establish this, and teach us to
expect us to expect this kind of representation on the part of others.
There are numerous Biblical examples that show us the principles of
representation. For instance, David and Goliath. David stands in for the
army of Israel. Goliath for the army of Philistia. David wins, Israel wins.
Goliath wins, Philistia wins. One man loses, one nation loses. One man
wins, one nation wins. Not fair. That​s the way it was. David and Goliath
provide an example. What about Abraham and his descendants?
Abraham believes God. Abraham obeys God and his descendants are
blessed and become God​s chosen people for evermore. Well, hold on,
what about his descendants? Abraham believed, his descendants are
blessed. Think again of David, in a less than favorable way this time. In I
Chronicles 21 David takes the census. He​s proud. He wants to see how
many army men he has. So David takes a census and 70,000 citizens of
Jerusalem die. David the King, the representative, the head, sins, and
Israelites die. Over and over in the Bible we see these principles. Pharaoh
opposes God. You live in a mud hut in the south of Egypt, and you​re an
Egyptian and you pay because of his sin. Over and over we see the
principle of representation in the Bible.

Fourthly, as we​ve just said in looking at verse 19, it​s not simply that we
are imputed the guilt of Adam​s sin. We are made sinners in Adam. We
are not only representatively sinners in Adam, but Paul tells us in
Romans 5:19 that we are actually sinners in Adam. So we can​t say, O,
Lord, we​re just innocent bystanders, victims here. There was a car reck,
and we just happened to see it. We​re involved in this thing. No, we were
driving the vehicle. We are sinners in Adam.

Fifth and finally believers. The character of God guarantees the justice of
all His actions. There are going to be many things in this life that you can
ask me about that I​m going to answer you by, "I don​t know, I don​t have a
clue But the character of God guarantees that He will do what is right.
And when there are areas of mystery that we do not understand, we are
on very good ground to assume God to be doing that which is right
because He has proven Himself to us in the way that He dealt with us in
His Son. So for all those reasons, let me argue that it is perfectly
appropriate to accept as fair, the imputation of Adam​s sin.

Now to unbelievers, very briefly. I​ve got three things that I​d like to say.
You​re sitting here saying, "Well, this is not fair." I want to say three
things. First, you​re not in a position to judge. You are standing in the
dock. You are standing before the bar of God​s justice. You​re not here to
judge the judge. You can​t extract yourself from this situation. But let me
say this. He is so sovereign that even if it were unfair, there would be
nothing that you could do about it. Because He​s the judge, He​s in charge,
that​s just the way it is. Think of it, He​s sitting around in the time of
Moses, and He decides that He​s going to take on the most powerful
kingdom that ever lived, or ever was in that day, the king of Egypt. And
He says, let Me see, how am I going to take down Egypt? I think I​ll send
frogs. That​s how sovereign He is. He can decide He​s going to wipe out the
most powerful kingdom in the world. How does He do it? I think I will
send frogs. God is sovereign. God has every capacity to bring you to the
bar of justice.

Secondly, because of your sin, my unbelieving friends, you can​t even

think past the fall to think about fair. You can​t get over the fact that we
have fallen and get back into an unfallen world and think about how
justice would have worked there. You can​t even think there, your mind is
darkened by sin. You are involved in sin. It​s like a person who is slipping
into dementia being asked to work through problems for which he no
longer has the capacity to contemplate. They forgot where they were
fifteen minutes ago. They forgot what they ate ten minutes ago. They
forgot to whom they spoke five minutes ago. That​s you in a fallen world.
You don​t even have the capacity to think about what​s fair.

Thirdly, and finally, let me say that for unbelievers, there is often a voice
that says, "That​s not fair, reject Him." And I want to say that that voice
has been heard before in human history. That voice once said to Eve,
that​s not fair, reject Him. And I can categorically, without having any
prophetic powers or omniscience today say that voice that is whispering
in your ear, "That​s not fair reject Him," that​s the voice of the evil one, the
enemy of your soul, Satan who is seeking to destroy you. That is not a
word of somebody who cares about you, that is someone who wants to
destroy you. And for all those reasons, I believe that your only wise
response is to accept what God has said in His word, and flee to Christ for
grace.

III. We must look away from our own deeds and righteousness
to the act of the One Man - Your Only Hope
And that leads me to the last thing that I​d like to say today. And you​ll see
it at the end of verse 18 and the end of verse 19, and that is your only
hope. Salvation is by works my friend, salvation is by works, or rather by
one work. Salvation is by the one work of the one man, Jesus Christ. It is
not by your works, it is by His one work. The work of which the complex
is represented in His life and in His death on our behalf; and, therefore,
we must look ahead from our own deeds and our own righteousness to
the act of the one man for salvation.

Let me ask you to do one thing. Take your hymnals out and look at
number 92. If you look at the second stanza of number 92, this is "A
Mighty Fortress is Our God." And interestingly enough, the hymn that we
are about to sing, makes the same point. But you know this hymn by
heart, so let me just remind you of it. Hymn 92, stanza 2, notice what
Luther says: "Did we in our own strength confide our striving would be
losing. We are not the right man on our side, the man of God​s own
choosing. Just ask who that may be, Christ Jesus, that is He. Lord
Sabaoth His name, from age to age the same, and He must win the
battle." What is Luther doing? He is summarizing for you Paul​s argument
from Romans 5:12 to 19. And it is simply this: In your own strength
confide, and you will lose. Trust in your own works, and you will lose.
Seek to be righteous before God in your own strength, and you will lose,
unless you run from your works to the one man, the one work, the right
man, Jesus Christ.

But He will, in fact we can say, He has won the battle. Now Paul​s whole
point in this passage is you flee from your works. You make a heap of all
your bad works; and all your good works, and you flee from them to the
one work of Jesus Christ which alone saves. May God bless you as you do.
Let​s pray.

Our Lord and our God, grant that we would seek our only hope in Jesus
Christ, receiving Your grace, accomplished by Him alone, by faith in Him
alone. We ask it in His name, Amen.

The Law, the Covenant of Works, and Grace

The Good News: There is an Alien Righteousness
Romans 5:20-21

If you have your Bibles, I​d invite you turn to Romans, chapter 5, we​ll
begin in this passage that we​ve been looking at for a few weeks. Romans
5:12 until the end of the chapter, there​s a passage in which Paul goes a
long way to explaining why salvation has to be by grace alone. You know
throughout this passage, Paul has emphasized that we sustain one of two
relations, and those two relationships determine our everlasting future.
We are either in relationship to our representative Adam, or we are in
relationship to our representative Jesus Christ. We are either in this
sphere of Adam​s influence, and part of his family, or by grace we are in
the sphere and influence of Jesus Christ and part of His family. And the
apostle wants to make it clear that everybody in the world is in one of
those two camps. You are either in Adam or you are in Christ.

Paul is wanting to make that analogy between Adam and Christ to show
the similarities and differences that exist between Adam and Christ
precisely so that we will understand that the only place that you can flee
for salvation is to Jesus Christ. There​s no third way. There​s no fourth
way. There​s one way. You​re either in Adam, or you​re in Christ. It​s that
simple.

Now having said that, the apostle has provoked the thoughts of the
thinking members of the group that opposes His teaching. And they are
wondering to themselves. Well, wait a minute, where does the law fit in?
Sounds to me, Paul, that you don​t have a place for the law. Where does
the law fit in? They are thinking of this. Now they don​t ask a question, at
least Paul doesn​t record the question that they are asking to themselves,
or maybe even objecting out loud here in verses 20 and 21. But he
certainly records their objections in chapter 6 and 7. And I want to
suggest to you that the fact that Paul brings up the law here again at the
end of a passage which has not, by and large, talked about the law, but
which has compared Adam and Christ, and their particular headships or
representative rolls or mediatory roles, how ever you want to describe
them, the fact that he introduces the law here then, is an indication that
he knows what his opponents are thinking. He knows the question that
they want to press. He knows the objection that they have to his teaching,
and he is pre-empting that objection before they even get it out of their
mouths. So with that with a word of introduction, let​s hear the word of
God in Romans, chapter 5, beginning in verse 20.

"And the law came in that the transgression might increase, but where sin
increased grace abounded all the more; that as sin reigned in death, even
so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus
Christ, our Lord."

Amen, and thus ends this reading of God​s holy and inspired and inerrant
word. May He write His eternal truth upon our hearts. Let​s pray.

Our Heavenly Father, show us Yourself in the Word, show us our sin in
the Word, and then show us the Savior in Your Word, for Your glory and
our good, in Jesus​ name, Amen.

Now Paul​s skeptical opponents are thinking, "Well, what about the law.
All this Adam and Christ stuff, no mention of the law." They are thinking
to themselves, "Look, Paul, the distinctive thing about us as believers in
the one true God is that God has granted us the law. When God through
Moses gave us the law, moral, civil and ceremonial, it set us apart from
the nations. And yet as you describe the way into saving fellowship with
God, there is not one mention here of the law. All this Adam headship
stuff, Christ headship stuff, and no law. What about the law, Paul?" And I
want you to see that the answer that Paul gives to that unspoken as yet
objection is as bold and as audacious as it could possibly be.

Let​s remember that Paul, though he is indeed speaking to a mixed

congregation, that is, there are some Gentile Christians there, as well as
Jewish Christians, he is speaking in the context where Judaism and the
religion of the Hebrews and the Scriptures of the Hebrews is very much
dominant in the thought world. Even the Gentile Christians that are a
part of this fellowship know the Old Testament well. And they know the
teachings of the Old Testament; and they know the importance of the
revelation of God​s law to Moses, and how that distinguished Israel from
all the nations. And there are some of them who are just a bit suspicious
of what Paul is saying, and they hear him speaking against the law, and
they hear him speaking against Moses; not unlike His Master was heard
by some who objected to His teaching, and they are suspicious of Paul
here. And the apostle wants to take opportunity again to shock them into
a realization about why salvation is by grace. Because of that, what Paul is
saying to this original audience, is just as relevant to you and to me today
as it was when He first spoke it. This is not just an interesting text that​s
two thousand years old that dealt with the specific cultural theological
problem with a particular group of people that has no further reference or
relevance to us. It has every reference and relevance to us. As Paul
himself could say about the Old Testament. These things happened and
were written for our benefit. That​s true of what Paul is saying today.

Now there​s a lot in this great passage. But all I want to look with you at is
two things this morning. We​re really going to skirt over verse 21 because
next week, Lord willing, we​re going to come right back to verse 21; and
look at what it means for grace to reign in righteousness. Today I just
want to concentrate on verse 20 with you. And I​d like you to see two
things there.

First of all, in the first phrase of verse 20, the apostle teaches that God
gave the law to convict and to convince us of sin. And second of all, I want
you to see in the second part of verse 20 that Paul teaches that despite the
increase of sin by the law, grace has been even more expansive. Grace has
super abounded, despite the increase of sin. Those are the two things that
I​d like to look at with you this morning in verse 20, the first part of the
verse and the second part of the verse. And I think as we look at it, you
will see the importance of grace and the reason why grace is the only way
that you can be reconciled with God.

I. The law is not our Savior, indeed its presence exacerbates our
predicament.
Let​s begin in the first part of the verse. The law came in so that the
transgression would increase. Paul is telling you here that one reason,
and he​s only giving one reason, and he​s not saying more right now, but
Paul is telling you that one reason that God gave the law, was to convict
and to convince us of sin. Paul is saying this because it is vital that the
Romans understand, and it​s vital that you and I understand that the law
is not our Savior. Indeed, the very presence of the law exacerbates our
predicament. You remember last time we were together, we looked at the
predicament that Paul talked about that we were in? Well Paul says, "The
law doesn​t help that predicament." The law, coming along in the time of
Moses, does not solve that problem that Adam plunged you into. The
coming of the law with Moses was not God​s great solution to the
Adamatic problem of sin, God​s great solution to the Adamatic problem of
sin was Christ and grace. And so Paul wants you to understand that the
law was never given to be your Savior.

The purpose of the law, not exclusively, but as Paul explains it here was
to; listen to it, increase sin. Look, if you​re paying attention at all, you​ve
got to be asking what in the world are you talking about, Paul? Are you
saying that God gave the law so that sin would increase? Are you saying
that God caused the increase of sin? Are you saying that God wanted sin
to increase, and so He gave the law to Moses? Are you saying that He
gave the law to Moses because He desired for us to send more? Well, the
answer of course is no. But if the answer is no, you​ve still got to ask, what
in the world are you saying, that the law came in that transgression might
increase?

Let me answer that question in four parts. And I​ll give you four words
beginning with "p" to sort of help outline this thing. Paul​s answer is
polemic, it is partial, it is pedagogical, and it is provocative. So there are
four parts to the answers. Paul​s answer is polemic. In other words, it is
argumentative. The first thing I want you to see is that this phrase, the
law came in that sin would increase, this phrase is deliberately designed
by the apostle Paul to promote the maximal offense in his hearers. He
wants everyone listening to be offended. Look, Paul is talking to people
who are the descendants of people who were sent into exile in Babylon
because they disobeyed the law. These people are serious about the law.
They know, especially as people who are no longer part of a Jewish
theocracy, that they​re under Roman domination, and that the one thing
that sets them apart from everything else in the world is the giving of the
law. And the apostle says here, "Now why did God give the law?" To make
you special amongst all the nations? No. So that sin would increase. You
couldn​t have said something more offensive to these people if you had
thought for a million years. Paul deliberately says this to shake them out
of their tree. Paul wants them to be shocked. Paul wants them recalibrate.
He wants them to, as one of my dear colleagues likes to say, he wants
them to reframe. He wants them to look in a different way than they are
looking. The law is not their instrument of salvation. No. In fact, he says,
"The law came in that transgression might increase." That​s the first thing
that I want you to see and understand in this phrase. He​s trying to shock
them. He​s trying to shock us. He​s succeeded. We​re all ears. Tell us more,
Paul.

Secondly then, notice that what Paul says about the law here is partial.
This is so very important. In the worship guide, if you want to sneak a
peak real quick, under the section on the sermon, I mentioned that there
are three phrases in this passage that are very, very difficult to
understand and have promoted a lot of misunderstanding. This is one of
those phrases because a lot of people have taken Paul here to be given the
sum total of what he believes about the law of God. In other words, they​ve
said, "Aha!" You see this is what Paul says, and therefore, the law has
nothing to do with the believer. That​s Old Testament; it doesn​t have
anything to do with the New Testament believer. But it​s very important
for you to see that what Paul is saying about the law here is partial, it is
selected. This is not all that Paul has to say about the law. If we would
look at Galatians, chapter 3, verses 17-25, if we were to look at II
Corinthians, chapter 3, verses 6 through 11, and if we would look at I
Timothy, chapter 1, verses 8 through 11, in all those places Paul has more
to say about the law than he has here. In fact, Paul is going to take up this
very subject again in Romans, chapter 7; and he​s going to have more to
say about it than he says about it now. So it​s important for you to
understand that this is not all that Paul has to say about the law, about its
function, about its purpose, about how it relates to Christians. But what
Paul is saying here is very, very important about the law. It​s essential to
understanding the role of the law. So what he​s saying is it​s polemic and
it​s partial.

It​s also pedagogical. He​s telling us that the law is given to teach us
something. It​s a pedagogue. What is the law given to teach us? Paul is
telling us here that the law served to teach us what sin is. It serves to
expose sin. We might even put it this way. It serves to expose sin in us.
Paul is telling us that the law serves a function of teaching us our need for
grace. This is what the old Reformed theologians referred to as the
second use of the law. It drives us to Christ by showing us our sin. As
James speaks of the law, do you remember what he calls the law? He
says, "The law is a mirror." You look at the law and what do you see? You
see yourself. And it​s not a pretty picture. It​s early in the morning; the
makeup is not on yet, it​s not a pretty picture. The law shows you yourself,
it shows you your need for grace. It shows you your sin, and thus by
showing your sin and your need for grace, it leads you to the Savior. The
Greek word pedagogue, for which we often use teacher, that​s how we
translate it today, actually referred to the slave that was a member of the
household that took the children to school. So the pedagogue took you to
the schoolteacher. He​s the one who led you to the one who was going to
give you what you need. And who was that one? Jesus Christ. So the law
leads you to the one that you need. Paul is saying that the revelation of
the law that God granted to us especially in the days of Moses was
designed to show us our sin, not to the be instrument of salvation. It is
not our Savior; but if properly understood, it leads us to our Savior. The
law apart from the Savior simply exacerbates our predicament. But the
law rightly and spiritually understood leads us to our Savior.

Do you remember that scene in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame?" I​m not
talking about the Disney version. I mean the book. Read the book. You
remember the scene where Quasimodo is with this beautiful thing that he
has captured, and she​s crying. And he says to her, "Why are you crying?"
And she says to him, "Well, you​re crying." And he says, "Well, yes, I am
crying." And she says, "Well why are you crying?" And he says to her,
"Because I never knew how ugly I was until I saw how beautiful you are."
And my friends, that​s the law. You never knew how ugly you were, until
you saw how beautiful your God was. The law shows you the beauty and
the glory and the honor and the uprightness and the holiness of God, and
it humbles you. You never knew you were such a mess before the law.
Furthermore, Paul is saying that the law had a distinctive role in God​s
purposes and mankind. He said, "Look, before the law, we knew the
difference between right and wrong. This wasn​t a relativistic moral
universe until God spoke to Moses from Mt. Sinai. From the time of
Adam, and his fall, we knew the difference between right and wrong. If
you had been around when Cain slew Abel, you would have known that
what Cain did was wrong. If you had been around when Abram went
down to Egypt, and told the leaders of Egypt that his wife was his sister,
and sure, you can have her, you would have known that the seventh
Commandment had been violated. You didn​t need a copy of the Ten
Commandments up on your school room board to know that. If you​d
been around when Lot went into the land of Canaan and chose the choice
land before Abram, his superior, and the representative of the Covenant
had the opportunity to choose his land; you would have known that Lot
was greedy without having the Ten Commandments spelled out for you,
or the Tenth Commandment spelled out for you as it is in Exodus,
chapter 20. But, when Genesis is succeeded by Exodus and Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, you better believe you know about sin now. If you knew
about sin then, after you​ve read through Leviticus, whew, boy do you
know about sin. After you​ve read through Exodus 20 and not only the
summarization of God​s ten moral commands, but the exposition of it
from the Exodus 20 to 24, and the discussion of worship that runs from
25 to 40; then when you pick up Deuteronomy, and you see this gigantic
farewell sermon by Moses that​s about what the righteousness of God
revealed in His law, you better believe you know about sin.

Paul is saying, "Look, God didn​t send the law into the world to be the
solution. God sent the law into the world so you would know that you
need grace. You need to understand what sin is. But furthermore, in the
very giving of the law, there is an expression of grace because in the
sacrificial system, we are pointed to the answer. The sacrificial system
points beyond itself. We know, as the Old Testament folk knew as well, to
a certain degree what the author of Hebrews said, when he says, "The
blood of bulls and goats cannot forgive sin." So did the people of God
think that by slaughtering calves, they were actually appeasing the
righteous judgment of God? No. They knew that those sacrifices pointed
to something greater, something beyond. And so the law itself reveals sin
to us in ways that we have never known it before. But it also pointed to
the Savior. "This is one thing," Paul says, "that the law was for." That​s the
third thing that Paul is saying when he says, "The law came in that
transgression would increase."

Fourth, and finally, Paul is saying, "The law is provocative." Paul may be
indicating that the law provokes sin. You know how this works. The
minute the boundaries are set, somebody wants to cross them. But that​s
why you can say to your young children, "Don​t you eat those peas." And
eighty-seven percent of the time it provokes the immediate response of
eating the peas. Why? Because in a fallen world, once the righteous
boundaries of God are laid down, there is an inclination in the wicked,
human heart to find those boundaries and transgress them.

I had the privilege, when I was in Colorado Springs last week with the
PCRT, of taking out the entire University of Arizona RUF group for
supper. Now don​t have in your mind Ole Miss or Mississippi State. This
was ten people. But we went to Chili​s. And as we drove into the Chili​s
parking lot, there was a bumper sticker on the back of a car that said
"Keep your laws off my body." I thought, well, that​s fairly in your face,
isn​t it? But, you understand the resistance there. How dare you tell me
how to use my body. Isn​t it interesting that when you lay down the good
and perfect law of God, it instinctively provokes a rebellion in the wicked,
sinful human heart. We resent the law. We don​t like the law. We want to
find every place that it can be bent, find every place that it can be
aggravated. You see, once you​ve seen your sin, and once you understand
that the law is not an instrument of salvation, then you have to look
somewhere else. That​s why Paul is telling you this. The reason you can​t
be saved by the Mosaic Law is that​s not what it was made for. It wasn​t the
instrument of salvation.

II. We need to look to grace, for grace superabounded and outdistances

the increase of sin.
Now that leads Paul to the second part of this sentence, which is the thing
that he really wants to say. And that is simply this: We need to look to
grace for salvation. We need to look to grace for grace super abounded, it
outdistances the increase of sin. If you​re wondering what in the world
Paul means when he says, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the
more." He doesn​t mean what some have said that he means, in saying
that we ought to sin so that grace can abound. Paul​s going to deal with
that in just a couple of verses. In fact, if you want a good commentary on
this Psalm, go back and look at that Psalm that we just sang, "Marvelous
Grace of Our Loving Lord." That song is a commentary on that part of
Romans 5:20. What Paul means is that God actually takes advantage of
the negative functions of the law in order to exalt Himself in order to
exalt His grace, and in order to foster His saving purposes. The more sin
is multiplied, the more it is shown to us, the more aware we become of it,
the more aggravated it is, the greater is the grace that conquers it, and the
more that grace is known and appreciated. The reign of sin is trumped by
the triumph of grace. Grace meets sin head on, and it defeats it.

What​s our favorite Southern way of dealing with sin and shame? Number
one of my list is denial. Obstruction. Make sure nobody knows about it. If
anybody knew that about me, they wouldn​t like me. So let​s pretend like
it​s not there. The elephant is in the room, right behind me, but it​s not
there. If anybody sees it, it​s not there. Denial. That​s our atoning work,
denial. God is saying, "Grace operates in a far more effective way than
that." Because grace, knowing that you ought to be rejected, if someone
knew that about you, in fact, you ought to be rejected by God, but grace
comes and says, I trump the sin, I conquer the sin, I justify the sinner, I
destroy the old man, I raise him to newness of life, I give him a new life
here, I give him a new hope in eternity. And all those things that you are
afraid of your friends knowing about you, grace deals with. Not because
God somehow didn​t know that you did them or didn​t know that you were
that way, but he knows you better than you know yourself. In fact, He
knows some of those things that you don​t know yet about yourself. And in
grace He comes to you, and He says, "Child, I know exactly who you are. I
know exactly what you​re like, and My grace is sufficient to conquer that
sin."

Now don​t run to your obedience for salvation, because your obedience is
the problem. Don​t run to your heart for salvation; your heart is your
problem. Don​t run to your deeds for salvation; your deeds are the
problem. Don​t run to making a new start in new start in life by making
some new resolutions. That​s the problem, your will is the problem, your
heart is the problem. You are the problem. Don​t run to you, run to Me,
run to Christ. Run to My grace, I am the solution. That​s what Paul is
saying. Grace is greater than all our sin.

My friends that is so comforting, not only because it teaches us why

salvation is by grace alone, but it also teaches us that no sin is greater
than God​s grace. Now you hunt around some dedicated Christians from a
little bit of time. You scratch around a little bit, and you talk a little bit.
There​s going to be one of them somewhere struggling with something
they just can​t let go of because they think that that sin is a little special,
it​s just a little beyond God​s grace. Paul is saying, "No, you​ve got it the
other way around. Grace is greater than all your sins." But Paul, you don​t
know what I​ve done. "Oh yes, I do. I​m the chief of sinners, and you​ve got
a ways to go before you catch up with me." Paul says, "I am the chief of
sinners, and I can assure you that grace is greater than all your sins.
That​s what Paul is saying here. That​s why you don​t run to yourself, you
run to grace, you run to Christ, and you will find that grace will triumph
over sin. May God grant you the faith to believe. Let​s pray.

Our Lord and our God, we bow before you, and we ask the grace to
believe. And then we ask, oh God, that grace would change us, transform
us. In Jesus​ name, Amen.

 Grace Reigns in Righteousness
Grace Reigns through Righteousness
Romans 5:21

If you have your Bibles, I​d invite you to turn with to Romans, chapter 5.
Before we hear the scripture this morning, I want to do two things. I want
to remind you where Paul has come in his overall, and then I want to
walk you through the five points of his argument that begin at the end of
verse 20 and run through verse 21. You will remember that in Romans,
chapter 1 and 2, Paul has told us about our predicament. He has told us
about the fact that we know God, and we ought to worship and adore
Him, but we don​t, and He makes clear that that predicament is universal.
No one is righteous, no, not one. In Romans, chapter 3, he tells us God​s
solution to that particular predicament. In His mercy He grants through
His Son​s atoning grace to those who trust in Him, and He accepts them
as righteous because of Him. In other words, he teaches justification by
faith in Romans, chapter 3.

Then in Romans, chapter 4, he defends that doctrine from Scripture, that

is, from the Old Testament. He wants to make it clear that this is not an
idea that he thought up, it​s one that​s rooted in God​s redemptive design as
far back as the covenant made with Abraham. And so he shows from the
Old Testament, both from the life of Abraham and from the life of David,
that this has always been God​s way of saving. There​s one of salvation in
all days, in all ages, and that way is grace. He defends that in Romans,
chapter 4.

Then in Romans, chapter 5, in the first eleven verses he wants to talk

about some of the implications of this truth of justification by faith, this
salvation by grace that he has been talking about. And so he tells us some
things. He says justification by faith results in our having peace with God.
He tells us that it enables us to rejoice even in sufferings. He tells us that
it results in our communing with God. He tells us that it results in our
security. The believer has a certain hope of future glory all because of
justification. He wants us to sense something of the significance,
something of the impact of this glorious truth of justification, this
glorious reality of justification for all those who trust in Jesus Christ.

Then, in Romans, chapter 5, from verse 12 all the way to the end of the
chapter, where we find ourselves today, we see Paul step back and say, I
want to tell you one more time why it is that salvation can only be by
grace alone, and why it is that your righteousness is not the vehicle of
your reentering into a pleasant and blessed relationship of communion
with God. Why it is that only through Christ can you be brought into a
relationship of communion and blessing with God. And so by paralleling
Adam and Christ, he says all who are in Adam under the reign of sin, the
law condemns them, God condemns them for their disobedience. The
result is death and final condemnation. But all who are in Christ, all those
who have been united to Him by the Holy Spirit by Faith, what do they
find? They find instead of condemnation, justification. They find instead
of death, life. They find instead of separation from God, communion with
God. And so he makes it clear that everyone who is in Adam, everyone
who is still under the bonds of sin, there is nothing that they can do in
their own righteousness to reenter into a relationship of blessedness with
God, because they are the problem. You are the problem is what Paul is
saying once again. But all those who are in Christ have turned away from
themselves and looked to Him for their only hope of salvation. And thus
Paul again shows us the glorious importance of salvation by grace alone
by faith alone in Christ alone.

And that brings us to Romans 5:21, the end of His argument. But to pick
up the full argument, in this verse, you need to look at the last phrase of
verse 20. So let​s look at that verse together. The last phrase of that verse
is grace abounded all the more. That phrase is very important for the first
part of verse 21. Grace abounded all the more so that as sin reigned in
death, even so grace would reign through righteousness. Paul​s argument
in the section that we are going to look at today has five parts. It​s very
simple, but because Paul uses so few words to explain so much more to
his truth, let​s just have clear in our mind the five parts of his argument.

His argument is first, ​grace abounded.​ That​s argument party one. Grace
abounded. Here​s part two: ​Grace abounded so that grace might reign.​
That​s the second part of it. The reason that grace abounded is so that
grace might reign. Third part of His argument: ​Grace abounded so that
grace might reign through the righteousness of Christ.​ Now you​re looking
down at your passage, and it just says ​through the righteousness of
Christ.​ And you​re saying ,where did you get this ​through the
righteousness of Christ?​ Well, I​ll defend that in a minute, but just wait.
Fourth part of the argument: ​to eternal life.​ The result of this reign of the
righteousness of Christ will be eternal life for all those who believe. And
then the fifth part of the argument: ​through Jesus Christ our Lord.​
Through the mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord. And again, you are
saying what is that ​mediation ​thing? I​ll defend that in a minute, but here​s
the five parts of Paul​s argument: Grace abounded so that grace
might reign through righteousness to eternal life thought Jesus
Christ our Lord. Get that outline and you​ve go the whole thing. So let​s
hear God​s word here in Romans, chapter 5, verse 21:

"That as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through

righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Amen, and thus ends this reading of God​s holy, inspired and inerrant
word. May He add His blessing to it. Let​s pray.

Father, this is Your Word, and we ask that by the Spirit You would open
our eyes to understand it. We pray, O God, that all those who are
believers on the name of the Savior, Jesus Christ, would be strengthened
by a deeper understanding of the workings of the operations of the
purposes of Your grace. And we pray that those who are not believers in
the Lord Jesus Christ, would be so stung by a sense of their sin and need,
that they themselves would be compelled to flee to the only one who can
help them, Jesus Christ. And find in Him more than they ever imagined.
These things we ask in Jesus​ name, Amen.

The function of Paul​s words in this little verse, Romans 5:21 is to tell you
the purpose of super-abounding grace. In other words, Paul, in Romans
5:21 is going to tell you why grace abounded. Why did it much more
abound? Why did grace super-abound in comparison to sin? Paul is going
to answer those questions in two parts in this one little verse. The first
part focuses on the reign of sin. The second part focuses on the reign of
grace. I​d like you to see three or four very important things today.
I. The reign of sin is an ugly thing.
First, let​s look at the first little phrase in verse 21, "So that as sin reigned
in death, even so grace." Paul is reminding us again in Romans 5:12
through 21 for the last time that the reign of sin is an ugly thing. The
reign of sin is what Paul is referring to one more time in contrast to the
reign of Christ in grace, and He is telling us again that sin reigned in
death. Sin dominates us when we are in Adam. Sin dominates us when we
are under the law, when the law is our enemy. Paul characterizes life
before Christ, he characterizes life apart from Christ in terms of the reign
of sin. In other words, he is saying, "Sin​s relationship to you is like the
reign of an absolute monarch. It completely controls you. You don​t stand
a chance. It has its way. If you could picture sin as a weight, many times
the weight of your body, so much greater than the weight of your body
that you could never lift yourself. You are flat on your back, and the
weight is on you. You can​t get it off. That​s the picture of sin that Paul
paints for you. You are totally dominated by it. There​s nothing that you
can do. And Paul is saying that because that​s the problem, of course, your
works can​t fix the problem, because you can​t lift the weight. It​s too much
for you. Sin totally dominates you. Don​t tell me about you helping
yourself in that situation. The whole point is you can​t. You are totally
morally dominated by this force of sin. It​s not a pretty picture.

But then Paul goes on to say the result of this reign of sin is death. Death
is both the natural consequence of sin, but it is also the express judgment
of God against sin. Sin so often paints itself as something desirable,
something liberated. "Ah, go on and do what you want. Don​t let those
fundamentalists ruin your life," perhaps you have said to you. Perhaps
somebody​s whispered that in your ear or perhaps someone has
whispered that in your heart. Sin presents itself as attractive but it always
results in the reign of death.

First there​s the law of diminishing returns. As you go the way that you
want to do and suddenly you find that you have to do more and more to
satisfy, and then finally you get to a point where you can​t be satisfied.
And then there​s that law of self-destruction which is woven into sin itself.
Where sin, though it presents itself as something that is going to enrich
you, eventually destroys you, it takes you apart, limb from limb; and it
finally results in death. William Plumber, a great Southern Presbyterian
commentator on the book of Romans describes it this way: "Look at how
sin has reigned unto death in history. It is written in every graveyard, in
every hospital, in every disease, in every groan, in every tormenting
apprehension awakened by a guilty conscience, in every prison house of
despair." So Paul for one more time has drawn attention to this reign of
sin.

But the reason that he draws your attention to the reign of sin is because
he wants to contrast it. The reason that he has brought this subject up
again is not for you to fixate on it, but he wants to point you to a contrast.
His purpose is to show you, look at the first verses, the first words of the
verse, "So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace." In other words,
Paul wants to draw your attention to the fact that God did something
good even with the reign of sin. That​s how awesome it is. That He was
able to do something good even with the reign of sin? What was it? He
made it to serve the interests of the exultation of His grace.

Think about it. No man was ever more miserable than the prodigal son
when he realized what he had done and been to his father. And when he
came to the realization of the reign of sin in his life, it crushed him. But
precisely because he realized the reign of sin in His life. Do you realize the
impact of the sight of the outstretched arms of his father upon him? A
man who finally knew that they he didn​t deserve a father like that.
Suddenly being welcomed back. You see the reign of sin taken away as the
Holy Spirit came and granted the peace of repentance in that man​s life,
became the very thing that accentuated the grace of God. He suddenly
realized, "This is mind-boggling. My father​s welcoming back me back as a
son, and he​s welcoming me back with a celebration. This is mind-
boggling."

And think about that repentant publican, that repentant tax collector,
hated by the Jewish people. In the temple, a betrayer of his own people,
and suddenly he is struck by the Holy Spirit with the weight of his sin,
and he sees the reign of sin in his life, and what does he do? He lifts up
this prayer. God have mercy on me, a sinner. While meanwhile the self-
righteous Pharisee is saying, "Lord, I thank you that I​m not like that
man." And you see, that Pharisee could never know the reign of grace,
because he had never seen the reign of sin in His own heart. But precisely
because that publican, that tax collector had seen the reign of sin, the
reign of grace was far greater in his eyes. And so God has turned that
reign of sin to His own purposes and those in whom He is working the
work of faith and repentance, God delights in turning curse into blessing.
He delights in liberating us from sin into the freedom of holiness.

And let me say that when we come to the Lord​s Table, we are being
reminded of just what He has done to break the power of sin, to destroy
the reign of sin: The death of His Son. How great must the Father​s love
must be that He would break the power of sin at such a cost. How great
must the power of sin be, that it required such a cost that grace might
reign. We celebrate that as we come to the table. That​s the first thing that
Paul draws to our attention. The reign of sin is an ugly thing. But the
reign of grace is greater still.

II. By the Law, sin reigned in death, by Christ, grace reigns in

eternal life.
Now I​d like you to look at the second part of the verse for a few moments.
"Even so, grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord." Paul is saying that by the law, in Adam, sin reigned in
death but by Christ, grace reigns in eternal life. He​s saying that the work
of Christ resulted in the reign of grace expressed in eternal life.

Paul tells you something that is four-fold about the reign of grace in the
second part of this little verse. He tells you four things about the reign of
grace. He tells you that grace reigns over sin, through the righteousness
of Christ, in eternal life, and by Jesus Christ. Grace reigns over sin,
through the righteousness of Christ, in eternal life and by our Lord Jesus
Christ. Let​s look at each of those four things as we consider this four-fold
reign of grace.

Paul tells us that grace reigns over sin. The whole purpose of the reign of
grace is the complete domination of sin in our life. Paul is telling us that
the reign of sin is ended through the conquering work of the grace of God
to all those who believe. The purpose of grace is to break the power of
reigning sin, as one of our favorite hymns says. The purpose of grace is to
break the dominion of sin in our lives not merely resulting in our
forgiveness, but also resulting in our transformation. God doesn​t give us
grace so that He can sort of equalize for us, He doesn​t give us grace so
that we can get back to neutral and then earn our way up. He gives us
grace that grace might totally dominate sin in our experience, not only so
that we are accepted as righteous, but so also that we actually become
conformed to the image of God in Jesus Christ. The purpose of grace is
the total domination of sin. There is a hymn in our old hymn book written
by Phillip Bliss that began like this: "Free from the law, oh happy
condition, Jesus has bled and there is remission." And every word of the
stanza of that hymn is true. By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we have
been granted remission, we​ve been forgiven of sins. But that is not the
whole story of grace. There​s more. It​s a package deal, and God does not
have in view our forgiveness, He has in view our transformation. And the
sad thing is that some evangelicals rewrite that verse of the hymn, and
they sing it like this: "Free from the law, oh happy condition, I can do as I
please now that I​ve got remission." You see, they want forgiveness, but
they don​t want transformation. They want the grace of God to set things
right, to put them back to the neutral base, but they don​t want the
transformation of life that comes from grace. But the reign of grace reigns
everywhere.

God doesn​t forgive us and then leave us in bondage to our sin. He breaks
the power of reigning sin. He sets the prisoner free, so that we are
forgiven. And the process of transformation is begun. It​s not perfect and
never will be in this life. It begins, and incessant war with sin in our lives.
In fact, it​s so incessant, and it​s so universal that you can say Christian, if
you​re not fighting against sin somewhere, you​re not a Christian; but it
breaks us free from the dominion of that sin, so that it has mastery over
us no more. So this is the first thing the reign of grace is a reign over sin.
Grace reigns on account of the one righteousness of Christ, righteousness
is imputed to us, and has been imparted to us. We are forgiven based on
His righteousness, we are credited as righteous on His behalf, and then
God begins this glorious work of transformation. Grace reigns over sin.

Secondly, grace reigns through righteousness. Notice it​s God​s

righteousness that is being spoken of here, not our righteousness. Paul​s
made it clear. Grace can​t reign through our righteousness. Our
righteousness is the problem. Grace reigns through righteousness. The
reign of grace over sin is made possible by, it​s made actual by, the
righteousness of God. And there are two things to be said about that.

First of all notice that God saves us by His righteousness, not our own. It
is the righteousness of God that puts us right with Him again. If our
problem is that we are under the weight of sin which has mastery over us,
how cruel it would have been if the Lord would say, "Okay, work your way
back into a relationship with Me." That​s the very problem - we can​t. And
so he emphasizes that it​s His righteousness, not our own by which grace
reigns.

Secondly, notice that the way that God shows His grace to us in salvation
is perfectly consistent with His righteousness. He saves us in such a way
that He doesn​t just sweep our sins under the carpet and say, "I​m just
going to forget about that, we​ll just pretend that didn​t happen." He deals
with us in such a way that every last penalty for our sin is paid, and every
last demand for righteousness is observed all through the work of Jesus
Christ. So that when God shows you grace, He did not do it at the expense
of His justice and righteousness. He does it in fact, in strict accordance
with His justice and righteousness. And the beautiful thing about that is
that He gives you more confidence than His grace, because now having
paid the due penalty of sin, it would be wrong for God to visit
condemnation and judgment against those for whom that judgment and
condemnation has already been born through Jesus Christ. And so He
saves us in such a way that His righteousness is exalted, and in no way
mitigated.

Thirdly, this reign of grace is through eternal life, or in eternal life. This
results in an eternal life begun in us now. It is life that death cannot
invade, a life that cannot be forfeited. If grace reigns through
righteousness to eternal life, does that not in and of itself speak of the
security of the believer? Sin reigned in death. If grace reigns to eternal
life, then who can be against us? And who can separate us from the love
of God which is in Christ Jesus. If the result of the reign of grace is eternal
life, does that not speak to the assurance of the believer, security of the
believer, the perseverance of the believer. If the purpose of grace for
reigning in your life is to give you eternal life, does that not comfort you
that God will bring to completion that which He has begun in you?

And finally, grace reigns by the mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord. It​s
almost redundant. Paul has said, what, thirty-nine times in the last five
verses? It​s all through Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul comes to the end of
this chapter, he​s getting ready to launch into a new thought, and he can​t
resist saying it one more time. All of this is by Jesus Christ, our Lord. The
supreme manifestation of the righteousness of God is in the person and
work of Jesus Christ. It is His person and work that has secured our
acceptance with God, because His righteousness is credited to our
account. It is imputed to us, and, therefore, we are accepted as
righteousness. That​s how grace reigns. It reigns over sin. It reigns
through the righteousness of Christ. It results in your receiving eternal
life, and it is all by Jesus Christ, your Lord. No, my friends, Paul then
turns to you and says, "Now explain to me again how it is that you are
going to commend yourself to God by your good works. And he says,
"Look, that​s fine. Go ahead and do this. All you have to do is be as
righteous and as perfect as Jesus Christ, and I promise you, He​ll accept
you. There​s your good news. You just be as righteous as Jesus Christ, and
He​ll accept you.

But I​ve got better news. There​s another way. You run from your own
righteousness, and you run from your own deserved condemnation, and
you run to Jesus Christ who will give you a supply of all the righteousness
you need. And He​ll uniteyou again in communion with your God. Here​s
what you do. You trust in Him, and it will change everything in your life.
It will result in forgiveness, it will result in transformation, it will result in
a new communion with God that you​ve never experienced before.

If that​s where you are today, my friend, I want to urge you, there​s only
way to run. There​s only one to run to, it​s Jesus Christ, because your
righteousness will not do. Unless you are ready to stand before God and
say, "My righteousness has equaled and perhaps excelled the
righteousness of Your own Son. Any takers? Do I flee to Christ? As Dixon
told us so long ago, "I make a heap of all my works, all my good works
and all my bad works, and I flee from them to Jesus Christ." That is the
way of salvation. May God bless you to understanding and respond. Let​s
pray.
Our Lord and our God, we thank You for Your word, we thank You for the
truth, for the encouragement of this verse, and we ask that You would
burn it into our experience onto our hearts. For Christ​s sake, Amen.

The Covenant of Preservation

Noah and Abram
If you have your Bibles, turn with me to the book of Genesis chapter 6.
Genesis 6, beginning in verse 9.

These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous
man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. And Noah became
the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Now the earth was
corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And
God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had
corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of
all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because
of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make for
yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and
shall cover it inside and out with pitch. And this is how you shall make it:
the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its
height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to
a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall
make it with lower, second, and third decks. And behold, I, even I am
bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is
the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall
perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the
ark-- you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into
the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the
birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every
creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind shall come
to you to keep them alive. And as for you, take for yourself some of all
food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for
you and for them.” Thus Noah did; according to all that God had
commanded him, so he did.

Thus ends this reading of God’s holy Word, may He add His blessing
to it. Let’s pray together.

“Our Lord and our God, we thank You for Your covenant initiatives
which structure the progress of history and especially of redemptive
history. We pray that as we consider Your initiative even in the midst of
judgment in the time of Noah, pray that our minds would again be
flooded with an apprehension of Your mercy. We ask these things in
Jesus’ name. Amen.”

I want to talk with you today about the Covenant of Preservation, as

Robertson calls it. That is the Covenant which God entered into with
Noah. And you may want to open your copies of Christ of the
Covenants to that chapter in which he deals with the Covenant of
Preservation. If you have your Hebrew text, you may want to go ahead
and open it to Genesis 6, because there is a section in there that I want to
take a look at. If you have your Greek testaments with you, there is a
passage later on today in Hebrews that I want to look at very specifically
and you may want to have your text already poised at Hebrews so that we
can take a look at that.

I want to do two things today. I want to show you a little bit of the
covenant context of Genesis 6 itself, so that you appreciate what is going
on here in terms of the flow of biblical history. And then I want you to
see the themes in the covenant with Noah that Robertson himself
highlights in his book, Christ of the Covenants. I want to go over
those themes with you.

You may know that there is somewhat of a debate over the place of the
covenant with Noah in redemptive history. Some people have
approached the Covenant of Noah as if it were an entirely Common Grace
Covenant, as if it were, in some senses, not part of the flow of the
Covenant of Grace. That is, a Covenant of Grace would not necessarily
have a saving focus, but more of a focus on the preservation of the normal
order of the world. A common grace covenant. Others have disagreed
with that. And I want you to see that there are both common and special
aspects of grace displayed in the Covenant of Noah. It is indeed part of
the Covenant of Grace, though it does have common grace significance as
well as special redeeming or saving grace significance.

The Fall
So, first let’s look at Genesis 6 and especially verses 9-22. In Genesis 6
verses 1-8, what you get is basically a summarization of the results of sin
in the old Adamic world, and when I say the old Adamic world, I am
simply talking about the world as it existed prior to the flood. We see at
least three stages of history in the first six chapters of Genesis. We have
the pristine unfallen world of the Garden of Eden. Then we have the
world after the fall of Adam, the old Adamic world. And then, beginning
with the flood, we enter into a new world as it were. So you have these
two great barriers, you have the barrier of the fall and the barrier of the
flood, before you could even get back to that pristine state.

I would suggest that is one reason why it is very, very difficult to

interpret some aspects of Genesis 1 and 2, because we don’t simply have
one blinder, the fall, but we have two blinders on us. Because biblical
history presents twin cataclysmic events in the first the first seven
chapters of Genesis. Not only is there the fall in Genesis 3, there is the
flood in Genesis 7 and it is presented as a cataclysmic event, as
catastrophic as the creation of the world. And the linguistic evidence for
that is replete. But let me just give you one example of that. Do you
remember that one of the main points in the Genesis 1 narrative about
God’s creation was God’s bringing order to the world and especially His
separating day from night, light from darkness, land from sea, the upper
waters from the lower waters. That is a theme that is repeated. You have
studied Genesis 1 a little, you know what I am talking about. In Genesis 7
as the flood proceeds, we are told explicitly by Moses that the upper
waters and the lower waters came back together again. That is a way that
Moses is hinting to you that there was a cataclysm so great that the whole
order of creation, as it stood, was stood on its head and some of those
things that God had brought order to are now brought back together.
God had separated the upper waters and the lower waters. Now in the
flood they are brought together again. Chaos rules everywhere except
inside that ark. That is a way that Moses is hinting to you how incredibly
unparalleled this flood is which God is bringing.

So you have these three stages of human existence. You have Adam
before the fall, you’ve got Adam after the fall. And then you have got the
world after Noah and his flood. And so when I refer to Genesis 6:1-8, as
giving you a picture of the culmination of sin in the old Adamic world, I
am talking about that second aspect, that second stage in world history,
prior to the time after the flood, after the fall itself. We have seen from
Genesis 3 on, a record of how sin plays out in the world of Adam after the
fall. And in Genesis 6:1-8, you get a picture of the culmination of that sin
and God’s reaction to that sin. And, of course, His reaction is the
immediate recognition that justice and righteousness demands that
judgment be brought against that world. So the very first thing that we
have in Genesis 6 is a recognition of the sinfulness of the world in the
time of Noah and its deserving of judgment.

Now, remember that Genesis 6:1-8 is not part of the book of Noah.
The book of Noah begins in Genesis 6:9. You remember from Dr. Currid
or Dr. Davis or one of your other professors teaching you the various
chapter headings that Moses gives you, and they all begin with that
repeated phrase, “This is the book of the generation of Adam” or “This is
the book of the generation of Noah.” And so Moses himself gives you his
chapter breakdown. He does not enter into the book of Noah until
Genesis 6:9. So what we are really seeing, when you pick up Genesis 6:1-
8, are the concluding statements, this is sort of the final word of God
about that world that existed prior to the flood.

Why is that God’s final word? Because the judgment that He is going
to bring to anyone with any sensitivity at all is going to be so
overwhelmed by the spectacle of what is going to unfold in Genesis 6:9,
all the way to Genesis 9. They are going to be so overwhelmed by that
extent and the severity and the brutality of that judgment that unless they
understand the extensiveness of sin, the ugliness of sin, the
rebelliousness of sin, they are not going to be able to appreciate that what
God is doing in the story of the flood is absolutely right.

You know, we all recoil from justice when we see it swiftly and
severely meted out. That is a hard thing to see. It is a hard thing to see
because we all know enough of our own culpability that we know that that
could be us when justice is meted out. We also have certain kindred
bonds of human affection for everyone. I mean, unless you are a twisted
person, you don’t enjoy seeing anyone endure suffering even if it is
judicial suffering. Most normal people don’t get a kick out of going to
watch executions. It is not a sport that you do. You don’t enjoy that type
of activity and God knows that there is a temptation for us to look at His
judgments and think, “Lord, aren’t you being a little severe here? Aren’t
you being a little unfair? Isn’t this a little too much?” And Genesis 6:1-8
is His final word on the way the world was, and He is saying, “You need to
look at this world through My eyes and see what I see. And when you
look at this world through My eyes and see what I see, then you will be
able to appreciate that what I am doing is not more than what is deserved
or less than what is deserved. It is precisely what is deserved.” And you
really haven’t gotten to the point of accepting God’s justice until you can
say, “What God in His providence has done is exactly what should have
been done, neither more nor less.” And so if you are a person wrestling
sometimes with the justice of God in your own experience, that is
something really to pray towards. “Lord, help me get to the point where I
recognize that what You do in Your justice is exactly what is required. It
is not more, it is not less. It is exactly appropriate, the punishment that
You have chosen, the penalty that You have chosen is exactly coordinate
with the crime that has been committed.” And so when we see God’s
display of wrath in Genesis 6 and 7 and 8, you are seeing God mete out
exactly what was deserved.

And that is one reason why God not only closes the book of Adam, but
opens the book of Noah, with another description of the wickedness of
the world. And if you look for instance in verses 9 and 10, of Noah, Noah
is introduced there in Genesis 6—Noah is introduced as a righteous man
in contrast to his contemporaries. So the book of Noah opens up with
God’s declaration that Noah is a man who is righteous in his generation.
Notice the words, “these are the record of the generations of Noah,”
“Noah is a righteous man,” “blameless in his time,” “Noah walked with
God,” and “Noah became the father of three sons.” So Noah’s character
was that he was a man who was right with God. And he was right with
man. The words that are used to describe him righteous and blameless
indicate that his relationship with God and man was a relationship of
integrity. And it indicates when it speaks of him as being blameless we
could translate that very legitimately as “whole-hearted.” That is not a
claim of perfection for Noah. That is not an argument that Noah had
never done anything wrong. It is a claim that Noah was whole-hearted;
that is, that his heart was not divided, partly loving the world and partly
loving the God that had made him and entered into fellowship and
relationship with him. No, he was a man who was whole-hearted in his
commitment to God. So he was a man whose actions were just. That was
apparent to those around him and he was also a man who was whole-
heartedly devoted to the Lord. And then, that third thing that is said
about him is that he was a man who walked with God in verse 9. He was
a man who was in living communion with God. That phrase is only used
of Enoch. That is the only other person where that phrase is used here in
the early chapters of Genesis.

This is a significant marker that Moses is giving you about the

character of this man Noah. So Noah was a man of God both inwardly
and outwardly. He was a man of integrity, of blamelessness internally.
And he was a man of justice and righteousness externally. There was a
coordination between his inner man and his actions. You could see his
inner man very clearly in his actions. He was a man who walked with the
Lord. Derek Kidner translates this verse, Noah walked with God, he
translates it this way: “It was with God that Noah walked.” So, though
Noah was out of step and out of character with his contemporaries, he
was not out of step with the Lord. So that is the opening picture of the
book of Noah—a picture of this man who was righteous even after God
has described this unrighteous world in Genesis 6:1-8.

The second picture that we have in the book of Noah, you find in
chapter 6, verses 11-12. There again, God repeats what He has previously
said about the condition of the old Adamic world. God sees the
judgment, or sees the wickedness and He brings judgment against it.
Notice verse 11. “The earth was corrupt in the sight of God, the earth was
filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold it was corrupt
for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And then God said
to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh had come before me, for the earth is filled
with violence because of them. Behold, I am about to destroy them with
the earth.’” So God sees the wickedness and He determines to punish it.
And Noah stands in total contrast to the picture that the world describes
here in Genesis 6:11-12. And in that context, Noah is given instructions
for building an ark. Now, as far as we know, just from what we are given
in the text, God has not even explained to Noah at this point how He is
going to bring destruction. He has only told Noah that He is going to
bring destruction. And He tells them, He tells Noah to make an ark of
gopher wood at this time. So God gives instructions to Noah but
apparently no detailed explanation about the function of this ark of
gopher wood at this time.

You see those instructions given in verses 14-17. That is the third
section of the book of Noah. The first section of the book of Noah opens
up with the description of the man; the second section with a description
of the world; the third section with a description of the instrument which
God has chosen to be the instrument of salvation for Noah and his family,
but without apparently having explained to Noah how it will function yet.
Because He hasn’t explained to him the nature of the destruction yet.

And then in verses 18-21, we see this very important passage where
the Covenant of Grace is inaugurated with Noah. Now, it is this passage
that I want you to look at very closely with me for a few minutes,
particularly zeroing in on Genesis 6:18. “I will establish my covenant
with you and you shall enter the ark. You and your sons and your wife
and your sons’ wives with you.” Now again in this passage, berith is the
term for covenant used. This is the berith because it is my covenant and
the Lord establishes the covenant with you, singular. He is establishing
His covenant we are told with Noah here. As we have said, the very
language that is used to explain this covenant which is being established
with Noah indicates that this relationship is a relationship already in
existence. It is confirming this relationship rather than initiating this
relationship. Let me give you an example of this from W.J. Dumbrell's
book, Covenant and Creation, An Old Testament Covenant
Theology. “In the three Genesis accounts, this aspect is not given
particular prominence and the issues are left somewhat open, though as
we might have expected in each case, each of the three cases, the
respective patriarchs appears to have occupied the more elevated
position. Moreover since in the ancient world, covenants were regulative
of affairs between man and man and nation and nation, we should most
naturally expect that the nature of the parties concerned would be a
variable. So in the Old Testament, the reported covenant arrangements
included parity, master-servant, and suzerainty types.” So he is saying
you had all those kind of relationships. You have some that are between
equals, you have some that are between master-servant, you have some
which where the lord comes in and lays down stipulations. As McCarthy
has pointed out, “what is of extreme importance to know, is the function
that the actual covenant conclusion, the making of a formal agreement
performs in each episode. The very evident fact in each case is that the
role of the agreement is not to initiate a set of relationships. What the
covenant does is formalize and give concrete expression to a set of
existing relationships,” and that is of course precisely what happens here
in Genesis chapter 6. The Lord confirms the covenant with Noah.

And let me quote to you another passage from Dumbrell's book, where
he addresses this. The heading of this section, by the way, is called, Is the
Covenant with Noah Established or Confirmed? “Outside the book of
Genesis, the terminology of covenant entry appears to be consistently
maintained. Such a consistency may cause us to reflect whether by the
use of heckeem, with berith,” and you will want to look at your Hebrew
text at this moment, in Genesis 6:18, the use of heckeem with berith in
the context of Genesis 6:18 and then if you want to flip over to Genesis
9:18, you will see heckeem used again with berith, all of which refer to
covenants as established or given, ”the beginning of a new covenant
relationship is being referred to, whether in each case the continuation of
some prior understanding is in mind. A decision here is bound up with
the way in which the Hebrew word, heckeem, is to be taken in these
references.” The evidence of this character makes it more than likely that
in the context where heckeem berith stand, and that is Genesis 6:18,
Genesis 9:9, Genesis 9:11, 9:17, Genesis 17:7 and the Covenant of
Circumcision there, Genesis 17:9 and 21 also Exodus 6:4 and I could give
you other references as well. But the evidence of this character makes it
more than likely that in context where heckeem berith as opposed, you
remember we said the other language was karat berith, to cut a
covenant. This is to establish or to make firm or to confirm a covenant
depending upon your Bible translation at that point.

What is the difference now? All we are talking about is what is the
difference between heckeem berith and karat berith. Here is what he
says. “Evidence of this character makes it more than likely that in
contexts where heckeem berith stands, the institute of a covenant is not
being referred to, the institution of a covenant is not being referred to but
rather, its perpetuation.” So what he is saying, when you see heckeem
berith, it is not saying that for the first time, a covenant relationship is
being established. It is saying that it is being preserved. It is being
confirmed.

Now that goes right along with the idea that we argued on the very
first day of class that a covenant functions in Scripture to do what? To
assure the believer of the certainty of the promises of God to him or to
her. And that is what he argues here. We must now probably surmise
that what is being referred to in Genesis 6:18 is some existing
arrangement, presumably imposed by God without human concurrence,
since it is referred to as “My covenant.” I will establish my covenant with
you. So the point, and by the way, if you want those pages from
Dumbrell, I don’t agree with everything that Dumbrell does in this book,
but it is a very, very helpful treatment of the early chapters of Genesis and
the concept of covenant and if you want the pages in which he discusses
this, he begins it on page 16 and he runs with this discussion all the way
through verse 24. Actually beyond that, to page 26. So from 16 to 26, the
book is covenant and creation. Subtitled, An Old Testament Covenantal
Theology, it is published by Paternoster Press. Dumbrell is Professor of
Old Testament at Regent College in Vancouver where Packer was for
many years. He taught at Moore College in Sidney, Australia for a
number of years. And I think Dr. McIntosh may have taught at Moore
College in the past as well.

Well, at any rate, that is Dumbrell’s argument, that what we see here
in Genesis 6:18 is not the inauguration of a covenant which had not
existed before, but it is the confirmation of a covenant. It is the making
firm of a covenant. It is the perpetuation of a covenant relationship.
 Now what is the significance of that? There are just two things that I
am wanting to press home to you about that. The first thing is to see that
a covenant exists prior to Genesis 6:18. Maybe the first time that the
term covenant is used, the covenant already exists. Secondly to recognize
God’s initiative in this covenant. Noah doesn’t come to the Lord and say,
“Lord, things are pretty bad, maybe You could do something for me
here.” Noah doesn’t initiate either the perpetuation or the establishment
of the relationship. God takes the initiative here in grace. God reaches
out to Noah. And I think that Dumbrell is probably right. That one of the
reasons why God says, “I will establish My covenant with you,” you see
that nice little pronoun stuck on the end of berith there in 6:18. “And I
will establish My covenant with you” is to stress that this is the Lord’s
covenant. He is taking the initiative in this relationship. He has
established the boundaries of the relationship.

So we see sin in Noah’s world. And we see God confirming the special
relationship of grace and favor that He has with Noah and we see Him
doing it right in the context in which He has given a command to Noah to
do certain things, in this case to build an ark and to prepare to stock it
with food and to wait to the animals come to you.

I want you to see that this covenant, though God initiates, Noah has a
part to play. There is bilaterality even to this covenant because Noah has
what? He has responsibility. God’s grace initiates, but Noah has
responsibility. Noah must respond to God’s favor by what? By
obedience. His obedience does not purchase him God’s favor. And it is
not obedience which got God to notice Noah in the first place.

One of the first things that people will do is they will look at Genesis 6,
and you may want to scan it with your eyes, they will look at Genesis 6:8-
9 and seeing them back to back, they will basically in their minds reverse
the order of the logic of those two verses. And they will say the reason
Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord is because he was a righteous
man blameless in his time. Now I don’t want to be too picky about that
because there is no question that the Lord was pleased in the
righteousness of Noah, but that is not the chronological order and it is
not the literary order of those passages. Because one is the last verse of
the book of Adam, one is the first verse of the book of Noah. So if you
argue that God’s grace in verse 8 of Genesis 6 was caused by Noah’s
righteousness or blamelessness in verse 9, for one thing you are ignoring
the book divisions that Moses has given you. One is the last verse of the
book of Adam. One is the first verse of the book of Noah. Secondly, you
are ignoring the order in which God has given you the information. The
last word in the book of Adam is that God’s favor fell upon Noah. No
explanation other than that is given. It is just that God’s favor fell upon
Noah. And then, you’re told in verse 9 that Noah was a righteous man.
He was a man of integrity. He was a man who walked with God. Now to
say that the reason that God favored him was because of his
righteousness is both to ignore the chapter division and to ignore the flow
of the logic of the verses themselves. And so I think it is important for us
to recognize that there is no indication that God’s grace relationship was
caused by anything in Noah. That is the nature of God’s grace. It falls
upon those who do not deserve it. Now is a person shaped by God’s
grace, so that their character is affected? Absolutely. Every time?
Absolutely, every time. Why? Paul tells you. Because grace reigns in
righteousness. Grace can make you righteous, but righteousness on your
part can’t make God give you grace.

First of all, because you can’t be righteous apart from God’s grace in a
fallen world. Second of all, because we are all in sin as we are born into
this world, we are in rebellion against God and there is no way that we
can initiate righteousness in order to purchase or to obtain grace. So,
recognize the significance of the relationship between grace and
righteousness even here in the story of Noah.

Now, one last thing that I would like to point to, and that is in verse
22. The response of Noah to God’s commands is obedience. Verse 22:
“Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him so he
did.” Now that is the same phraseology that is used over and over in book
of Exodus of Moses. “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded
him.” And Noah’s response to the command of the Lord here is clearly
obedience.

Now do you see already the elements of a covenant relationship here

in Genesis 6, even apart from Genesis 6:18 in the use of the word
covenant? You have got sin, judgment, grace, blessings, commands, and
obedience. Those are the first verses of the book of Noah. You get sin,
grace, blessing, commands, obedience. Noah in a world of sin. God’s
favor has fallen upon him. God blesses him by sparing him from the
judgment that is to come. Noah responds in obedience to Him. You have
all the elements of a covenantal relationship in which there is both
blessing and responsibility. And it is all right there for you in Genesis 6.
Even if the word covenant weren’t there in Genesis 6:18, you would
again, just like we saw in Genesis 2, see the pattern of a covenant
relationship between God and His man, in this case Noah.

God’s Covenant with Noah

Now let’s look then at these various emphases that we see in the covenant
with Noah, all the way from Genesis chapter 5:28 and the story of
Lamech and the naming of Noah, his son, down to Genesis chapter 9:29.
Six emphases in God’s covenant with Noah. The first emphasis that we
see or that I want to highlight and I am just going to follow along
Robertson’s own outline here, is the connection between God’s covenant
with Noah and the Covenant of Creation.

There is a connection between God’s covenant with Noah and the

Covenant of Creation. How do we see that connection between the
original covenant of God in the Garden with Adam (the Covenant of
Works) and this covenant with Noah? Well, first of all, we see it in the
very phraseology of Genesis 6:18, which indicates a covenant relationship
already exists. This idea of relating to God in this way is not a new thing.
It preexists Noah. But there are also interesting parallels. For instance,
in Genesis chapter 9:1, Noah is explicitly told to be fruitful and multiply.
Now what is that echoing? It is echoing in the exact words the creation
ordinance that had originally been given to Adam. So, the creation
ordinance, which had been established in the Covenant of Works with
Adam in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is confirmed in the relationship with
Noah in Genesis chapter 9 verse 1. In the same fashion, we are told in
Genesis chapter 9 verse 2, that the fear and dread of man will fall upon all
creation. Now that echoes the language of dominion in Genesis chapter 1,
where it says that man would be given to rule over the fish of the sea and
the birds of the sky and of the cattle and creeping things. Over
everything, basically. Over the whole of the animal and the inanimate
creation. And so the language of Genesis 9:2 echoes that. That’s
dominion language. And so that plays a part in man’s subduing of the
earth.

Let me also mention that in Genesis chapter 5:28-29, that Noah’s very
name reflects the Sabbath ordinance. You remember Lamech named his
son, Noah, for a specific reason. Genesis 5:29. He called his name Noah
saying this one shall give us rest from our work and from the toil of our
hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed. Now it is
important for you to know that the word rest there is not the same word
that is used for Sabbath. Okay. It is not the same word. But the concept
is the same. The idea is that Noah is going to be the one who gives them
the rest from the wickedness and sin which is being perpetrated in the
world and so that very idea hearkens back to the Sabbath rest given in
Genesis chapter 2. So we see all sorts of connections in the covenant with
Noah and the Covenant of Works. We see God reestablishing His
creation ordinances in the Covenant of Noah. It is part of the Covenant of
Grace but the creation ordinances are still maintained. That is very
important for us to recognize. The creation ordinances are perpetual.
They are perpetual for every culture for every time, for every people, for
every nation. The creation ordinances are perpetual.

The second thing I would like you to see that Robertson talks about is
the particularity of God’s redemptive grace in the Covenant with Noah.
From this mass of depraved humanity, God shows grace towards Noah
and his family. Out of thousands and thousands and tens and hundreds
of thousand and millions of people perhaps. Who knows what the
population count was. But out of this mass of humanity, depraved, in sin,
under judgment, God saves one man and his family. They experience the
blessing of salvation while others continued in their hardened ways.

Now, I think that is one of the points in the story of Noah that makes
God want to take so much care to explain to you how wicked the world
was. Because, a natural human reaction to this spectacle of this massive
humanity on the one side and Noah and his family on the other side is to
say, that is not fair. I mean, one little family over here and God saves
them and all these other people, and God doesn’t save them. That is not
fair. He is being too particular.
 But what Genesis 6 verses 1-8 sets you up for is to understand that
there is no one there who deserves this. So if you have got to complain
about fairness, you have to complain that God shows any mercy because
His judgment is absolutely just. So, towards this particular man, among
the mass of undeserving humanity, God shows the richness of His
unmerited favor. His particularity, the particularity is absolutely striking
here. Derek Kidner says, “If as few as eight souls are saved, seven of
these owe it to a single one, and this minority inherits the new earth.”
And Kidner goes on to say that the first full scale judgment demonstrates
that with God, the truth of a situation prevails, regardless of majorities
and minorities. God didn’t look out there and take a count and say,
“Well, the majority are wicked, I guess I am just going to have to forgive
them.” God brings the judgment upon the majority.

I think the care with which Moses recounts the wickedness (and let
me just say a pastoral aside here) is very important when you are
struggling or wrestling with a friend who is struggling with the fairness of
God in judgment. Now we Calvinists usually face that in two ways. On
the one hand, we may be talking to our multi-cultural postmodern friends
who don’t think that it is fair for anybody to be sent to hell under any
circumstance. And then on the other hand, sometimes we are talking
with non-Calvinistic friends who think that our God is extraordinarily
mean because He actually chooses some people to go to heaven and He
decrees to pass by others. Whatever you say, that is not fair. That is what
is said. So in whichever situation of fairness you are dealing with, what is
the pastoral hint that Moses tells you to never to forget when you talk to
them? Don’t get into a discussion about fairness unless you talk about sin
first. Because until a person understands the culpability that is attached
with sin, they cannot understand justice. See, if a person has a
fundamental disagreement with you about the deserving of judgment of
all mankind, then as a Christian, and by the way, not just as a Calvinistic
Christian, but as any kind of Christian, you have no answer for them. If a
person fundamentally does not believe that people are deserving of
judgment, a Christian does not have an answer to their concerns about
the justice of God. Only a person that comes to grips with the nature of
sin and that sin inherently deserves judgment is able to cope with what
the Bible says about how God handles sin.

So that is where you start. Don’t get hung up in the decrees of God.
Don’t get hung up in predestination or election. You’ve got to make a
beeline for sin. That is right where Moses goes. He knows somebody is
going to pick up this book and say, “Wait a minute, this is not fair.” And
so he builds a case like a lawyer (I won’t draw any parallels with
Washington right now). Like a lawyer he begins to give you overkill
about what was going on in that world. Why is he doing that? Because
he wants you to understand that sin brings judgment by its very nature.
And that what is going on here, no matter how particular are God’s
dealings with this one family, you cannot say, “It is not fair, God, You
shouldn’t have only shown Your favor to them, You should have shown it
to more people.” You can’t make that complaint, having truly listened to
what Moses has said.

Now if a person wants to say, ”Well, I hear what Moses said, but I
disagree with him,” where do you go from there? If a person truly wants
to listen to what Moses is telling you (and, of course he is speaking under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; he is speaking the very word of God;
this is God’s word, ultimately, even more than Moses word; you are
getting God’s perspective on that situation), there is your pastoral advice.
When someone is wrestling with fairness, you make a beeline to sin.
Because the issue of fairness, anytime someone says that God is not doing
something fair, you may be assured that they do not have an adequate
understanding of sin.

Now it is interesting that in Anselm’s dialogue with his student, Bozo,

you remember Bozo, aptly named Bozo in “Why Did God Become Man?”
In that book, he has Bozo asking him, “You know, how can this be, you
know, it is not fair.” And the response of Anselm is, “Ah, I see that you
have not rightly understood sin.” So we are lost as Christians in terms of
explaining the issue of fairness if we attempt to do it apart from
addressing the issue of sin. So fundamental to the Christian answer to
objections to the fairness and justice of God is a right apprehension of
biblical teaching about sin. So that is the first place you make a start in
terms of explaining to those who are making objections to a Christian
doctrine of justice in God’s judgment.
 The third thing that we see in the Covenant with Noah is that He
zeroes in on this one family and really, He zeroes more in on the one
man, and for his sake, brings in the family. Now we have looked at the
interconnection between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant with
Noah. We have looked at the particularity of God’s grace. It is extreme
particularity. Then we see, thirdly, that God deals with families in the
Covenant with Noah. So we see the familial structure of God’s covenant
with Noah. God deals with family via a representative head, and over and
over, the text of Genesis 6-9 indicates God’s commitment to deal with
Noah and his house. “You and your sons and your wife and your sons
wives with you” becomes a repeated theme. It is repeated, you first
heard it in Genesis 6:18, but it is repeated in Genesis 7:1, 7:7, 7:13, 7:23,
8:16, 8:18, 9:9, 9:12, and you get the point that God is wanting to drive a
truth home here. He is building a theme, a thematic argument here.
Noah is set apart as the head of the family. “My covenant with you.” He
has a unique position in the eyes of God. Genesis 7:1, for instance, “Go
into the ark, you and your whole family because I have found you,” not
ya’ll, “you Noah, righteous in this generation.” The you is singular, it
refers to Noah alone, because the head of the house is found righteous.
His house goes into the ark. That is why Hebrews 11:7 says it was by faith
that Noah built an ark to save his family. So we see the basic construction
of creation’s order again finding its counterpart in redemption.

As God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone in the original
Covenant of Works, guess what, it is not good to be alone in the Covenant
of Grace either. God continues to operate on a family principle. By the
way, this is foundational for your understanding of the Church. The
Church is not incidental to God’s plan. God’s plan does not save
individuals and, oh by the way, we might do a church as well. The Church
is fundamental, it is central to what God is doing in redemption and, of
course, this cuts directly against the kind of intense individualism that
continues to characterize the western world today.

Fourth, this covenant with Noah concentrates on preservation.

Preservation. This is the common grace element in the covenant with
Noah. It concentrates on preservation. God commits Himself to preserve
the present order of the world so that the work of redemption can be
accomplished. You see it in the language of Genesis 8:22, seed time and
harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never
cease as long as the earth endures. So regularity and order will be
preserved in the creation, God says. Regularity and order will be
preserved in the creation. And we also see elements of human
government in the covenant with Noah which supports this theme of
preservation.

Apparently to this point, God has reserved to Himself alone the right
of capital punishment, but now in Genesis chapter 9:3, if you will turn
with me there, we read this. “Every moving thing that is alive shall be
food for you. I give all to you as I gave the green plant, only you shall not
eat flesh with its life. That is its blood.” Now we will talk about that
passage later in the context of Acts chapter 15. It is interesting that when
resolution is brought to the situation about whether believers who are
non-Jews, that is Gentiles, whether Gentile converts to Christianity must
obey the ceremonial law of Moses, in Acts chapter 15, the deliberation
that is handed down by the apostles and the elders basically says, “No,
they do not have to obey the ceremonial law of Moses. They only have to
abstain from food which has been strangled or cooked in its own blood.”
And they are going right back to the provisions of the covenant with
Noah. Isn’t it interesting that they bounce immediately back to a
common non-Jewish covenant expression of the Covenant of Grace.
They move beyond the Covenant of Abraham, one step back to a covenant
which existed prior to the existence of the Hebrew people. It is an
amazing piece of biblical theology being done there. And I won’t say
anymore, we’ll come back to it later.

But then He goes on and He says this: “Surely I will require your
lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from
every man’s brother, I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s
blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made
man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth
abundantly and multiply in it.” So we see again that repetition of “be
fruitful and multiply,” but here see a direct command for capital
punishment.

And notice the parallelism there in verse 6 and you can see the little
diagram. It is an a,b,c,c,b,a parallel:
a. He who sheds
b. the blood of
c. man;
c. by man
b. his blood
a. shall be shed.

So you see a nice little Hebrew parallelism here. He who sheds man’s
blood, by man his blood shall be shed, in that first phrase of Genesis 9:6.
So this is not a statement of what will just inevitably happen, that when
people kill, other people will kill them. This verse is explaining how God
will demand an accounting for the manslayer, whether he is human or
beast. He is saying that life is so precious, human life is so precious. And
notice he gives you the reason for it in the second half of verse 6: “for in
the image of God He made man,” because we are image-bearers of God,
therefore those who take the lives of others have just inherited the
inalienable right to give their lives in exchange because they have made
such an extreme violation on the image of God. They, too, must now be
punished in a capital way.

So these self-restraining principles in the Covenant of Noah are of

course picked up on with the legislation of Moses, but capital punishment
begins here in the Covenant of Noah. That is quite important because a
lot of times you will have Christians argue that capital punishment is a
provision of Mosaic legislation and we have moved beyond that now and
that is part of the Mosaic legislation that we need to drop and we need to
drop capital punishment, too. But like so many other principles, capital
punishment existed prior to the Mosaic legislation as we see in Genesis
chapter 9.

A fifth dimension of the Noahic covenant, of God’s covenant with

Noah is the universalistic dimension. The universalistic dimension.
Now, this is important because it balances that emphasis on particular
grace that we had seen in the covenant in terms of God’s relating to Noah
and to his family. The universalistic dimension of God’s covenant tells
you what to expect in the future. It doesn’t mean that every single soul
will be saved in the end. The destruction of all the wicked in the flood
waters of Noah makes that very clear. This universalistic dimension does
not mean universalism, it doesn’t mean universal salvation, but it does
mean that a fallen universe can expect a complete restitution in the
redemptive plan that God is setting forth, so that God’s redemptive work
in the Covenant of Grace has cosmic consequences.

Not only will it impact every tribe and tongue and nation, it will also
involve a renovation of the world itself. The inanimate creation as a
whole will benefit from God’s redemptive work in the Covenant of Grace
and Paul makes this clear in Romans chapter 8:19-21. The creation waits
in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed for the creation
itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the
glorious freedom of the children of God. It is another connection with the
Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Creation. Just as the creation
suffered because of Adam’s sin, under the Covenant of Works, so also
under the Covenant of Grace, creation itself will benefit from God’s
redemptive work. There will be restoration from that decay and bondage
to it. The resurrection of the bodies of believers we know will entail a
drastic change for us. And this universalistic element also provides for us
the foundation for a worldwide proclamation of the Gospel. Because God
has commissioned day and night and sun and moon to proclaim His
message of grace everywhere (Psalm 19) and in the bow in the clouds that
He places, so also everyone ought to hear the Gospel of the Lord Jesus
Christ. The Gentiles ought to hear since both Moses and Isaiah
prophesied of the salvation of those who never sought God. Paul picks up
on that in Romans chapter 10.

One last thing as we close: The gracious character of this covenant

with Noah, this covenant is gracious. God’s bow in the cloud reminds us
of the judgment that even Noah deserved. And that bow, you remember,
reappears in Revelation chapter 4:3, around the throne of glory in
heaven. The emerald rainbow is there to remind you of God’s gracious
preservation.

God’s Covenant with Abram

If you would turn over to Genesis chapter 12, I want to begin by taking a
look at God’s establishing of covenant relations with Abram. Genesis
12:1-3.
Now the LORD said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father's house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

I want you to note several elements of this particular relationship

between Abram and the Lord. You will note, first of all, that the
terminology of covenant is not present here in Genesis 12:1-3, but that
what we have here is most certainly the specific establishment of
covenant relations between God and Abram. And the very language that
is used in Genesis 15:18, as Dumbrell argues, when it speaks of making or
confirming a covenant, indicates the relationship has already existed. So
here we have the inauguration of the covenant with God and Abram.

Notice that the first thing that is called upon in this relationship, or
the first things that are mentioned, are the directives. These are the four
responsibilities that Abram has. He is first to leave his country. He is
second to leave the predominant company of his family relations.
Apparently Abraham is not in violation of this agreement by taking along
Lot, his nephew. But you will remember that the presence of Lot gets
Abraham into some, at least adventures, if not troubles. Okay. But he is
apparently not in direct violation, so we can take this phrase to refer he is
going to move away from the environment, from the surrounding, from
the predominant company of his relatives. Thirdly, he is told to leave his
father’s house. And again that has less geographical significance than it
does have authority significance. He is coming out from under the
influence and control of his father’s domain and household. And, finally,
he is to go to the land which the Lord will show him. And so all those
four directives are given immediately in this relationship.
 Again, it is the Lord who comes to Abram. Abram doesn’t go looking
for the Lord. The Lord goes to him. So the Lord is doing what? The Lord
is taking initiative in this covenant. But immediately in this covenant we
see responsibilities. Abram has responsibilities. And these are listed
before him.

Why do I mention that? Again to stress to you that the Covenant

of Grace involves God’s initiative in salvation. But that does not mean
that there is no responsibility on our part. So there is both the grace
of God and human responsibility involved in this covenant
relationship. And that is very important for us to understand. We have
to watch out on the one side for those Christians who want to make
salvation something that is obtained by obedience. And on the other
hand, we have to watch out for those Christians who want to think that
obedience has nothing to do with salvation. On the one hand, there are
those who want to make salvation a matter of something that we
individually earn. And so they confuse the nature of the way God’s favor
is obtained. And on the other hand, there are those Christians who think
that any time you talk about obedience, your are somehow bringing
works righteousness into the relationship that we have with God. And so
they are afraid to ever talk about obedience. Because, “Oooh, that is not
grace. You know you can’t talk about obedience.”

That is an appalling misunderstanding not only of the relationship

between grace and works, but it is a misunderstanding of the covenantal
view of the relationship between grace and works. God clearly takes
initiative with Abram. God’s favor falls upon Abram and it is not Abram’s
fault. But Abram has responsibilities in this relationship. Every
relationship, by definition, is bilateral. There are responsibilities in any
significant relationship in life. There are responsibilities on the part of
both parties and Abram’s are frankly spelled out first here in Genesis 12.

Then you have the blessings mentioned in verse 2. “I will make you a
great nation, I will bless you and I will make your name great.” So again,
three things are spoken here. He will be made a great nation. What is the
significance of that? Isn’t it interesting that the very first thing that is
said in the Abrahamic covenant is that Abraham will not be the sole
recipient of the blessings that God is going to pour out on him. You
know, at the very heart of what God is going to do in Abraham’s life is
something that extends far beyond Abraham, it extends to his
descendants. He is going to be made a great nation. I mean Abraham
can’t be made a great nation on his own. Do you see yet another hint of
the doctrine of the church here? Salvation by its design is meant to be
experienced corporately in the context of the fellowship of the family of
God. And so the promise from the very outset to Abram is I will make
you a great nation, I will bless you, though that blessing is not specified
here. The general blessing and favor of God is going to come upon him
and “I will make your name great” we are told. I will make your name
great.

Now that is so significant because if you turn back to Genesis chapter

11 and you see the words of the men in the Plain of Shinar, they say this,
in Genesis 11:3, “Come let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly and
they used brick for stone and they used tar for mortar and they said, come
let us build for ourselves a city and a tower whose top will reach into
heaven and let us make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered abroad
over the face of the whole earth.” Now, there are all sorts of things going
on there. For one thing they say that they want to build a city. They are
wanting to establish this permanent place for there power and for their
influence to be exercised in and they want to make a name for
themselves. They want to have renown, they want to be famous, and of
course we know what happens to their plans. You know, the Lord utterly
rebukes them and refutes their plans. But isn’t it interesting, these men
sought to make a name for themselves.

And what is said to Abram? “I will make your name great.” Abram
had not sought to make his own name great, but as part of God’s blessing
upon him, God said, “Abram, I will make your name great.” When man
seeks to increase his own name, God will rebuke him. But God in His
goodness gives us a name as His children. And so this blessing is poured
out upon Abram.

But even by the end of verse 2 in Genesis 12, it is clear that Abram’s
blessing again is not merely something that he is to enjoy individually.
Notice what is said. “And so you shall be a blessing.” So Abram is
blessed in order to be a blessing. That is always the way it is with
believers. We do not receive the gift of God to hoard it to ourselves, but
we receive the gift of God in order to be a blessing to others. And in this
passage we are going to find out that that means being a blessing to the
nations.

And so we go on in verse three, “I will bless those who bless you and
the one who curses you, I will curse.” We see here a recognition that the
dividing point in the human family for the blessing of God or for the
cursing of God is in their relationship to the family of Abraham. If they
are for Abraham, they are blessed, if they are against him, they are
cursed. Now this, I think needs to be understood in more than an ethnic,
in more than a political or national or even familial sense.

I think this needs to be understood in a religious sense. Let me give

you the parallel. Do you remember in the cursing of Noah against
Canaan, that Shem is blessed and Japheth is blessed to dwell in the tents
of Shem, but Canaan, son of Ham is cursed to dwell away from the tents
of Shem. Shem is the line of blessing. Japheth is blessed as he dwells
within the tents of Shem. The family of Ham through the line of Canaan
is cursed because of Ham’s sin and so dwells away from or in the face of
the tents of Shem. The point there being not that there is something
magical about living in the household of Shem, but recognizing that Shem
is going to be the line of godliness. That is the line of the seed of woman.
So if you dwell in harmony with the line of Shem, you are in the way of
salvation. But if you dwell in opposition to the line of Shem, you are in
the way of cursing. The same thing is happening here. You bless
Abraham, you are blessed because in blessing Abraham, it says that you
understand the covenant of the God of Abraham. God’s blessing is on
Abraham. That is why he is a blessed man. You bless him, you are
blessed. You curse him, you are cursed. So this is not just about
protection for Abraham, this is telling us something about the way of
salvation.

And then finally we are told in verse 3, “and in you, all the families of
the earth shall be blessed.” Now again, this universalistic dimension to
God’s covenant relationship with Abram is stressed. God’s design in the
Covenant of Grace with Abraham is no less than that that all the families
of the earth would be blessed. Here is the foundation for our commission
to go to the ends of the earth. The Great Commission of Matthew is not
new news. It is simply a repetition of a principal already set forth in
Genesis 12:3: that the purposes of God in the Covenant of Grace is to
bring spiritual blessing to all the families of the earth. So from the
beginning, Abraham is to be blessed and to be a blessing.

Now, you know the story, and we are not going to go through the
details of the two incidents, both with Abimilech and with the Pharaoh.
But you know that Abram and Sara, his wife, wait many years for the
fulfillment of this covenant promise to be made and if you will turn over
with me to Genesis 15:1, and after who knows how long, after many
decades, the Word of the Lord comes to Abram in a vision saying, “do not
fear Abram, I am a shield to you. Your reward shall be very great.” So
notice again what is said, “do not fear Abram.” The Lord speaks. He
knows that Abram’s faith is being tested by this waiting. Secondly, “I am
a shield to you.” He repeats His protective providence, just like when He
had said back in Genesis 12, “I will curse those who curse you,” He
repeats to him, “I will be a shield to you.” I am there to be your
protector. My providence will protect you. And your reward shall be very
great. So He repeats His purposes to bless Abram.

And what is Abram’s response? Verse 2. “Oh, Lord God, what will
you give me since I am childless and the heir of my house is Eliezer of
Damascus?” So Abram’s response is, “Lord it doesn’t matter what you
give me; my servant Eliezer is going to inherit it. It doesn’t matter how
much riches you dump on me, it doesn’t matter what blessing you give to
me, I don’t have a son to pass it on to myself.” And so by legal
arrangement (and by the way, we have evidence of legal arrangements in
the third millennium in the near east, we have examples of this from
other cultures), where if the head of a household is childless, he may
declare a servant within his household to be the legal recipient of all his
wealth upon death, and to be the executor of the estate, etc. And that is
exactly what has been done here with this gentleman, Eliezer of
Damascus. And again, his location lets you know that this is a Canaanite.
This is someone living from within the land. Okay. And so Abram is
upset.
 He goes on to say in verse 3, “Since you have given no offspring to me,
one born in my house is my heir.” So he is reiterating, “This slave was
born in my own household, and not born to me, but born into the sphere
of my authority and he is going to be my heir, Lord, so it doesn’t matter
what You give to me.” Notice that Abram is not interested in
experiencing the blessings of salvation in isolation. Abram is not satisfied
until the blessings of salvation had been visited upon his family and he
had been made a great nation. What a difference in an individualistic
attitude which is so often represented in our culture today which basically
says, it is me and Jesus and who cares about anybody else—sort of the
Lone Ranger Christianity. Abram is not satisfied until he sees the
blessing of God fall upon his heirs, his descendants and the covenant is
established.

And the so the Word of the Lord comes to him a second time and God
says to him in verse 4, “This man will not be your heir, but one who shall
come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” So the Lord
contradicts Abram. He says, “Abram, you will have an heir, you will have
an heir from your own body, this servant will not be your heir.” And then
he takes him outside, verse 5, tells him to look toward the heaven, tells
him to count the stars, and then He says “if you are able to count them, so
shall your descendants be.” He says, Abram look at the night sky,
perhaps you can see 1500, maybe 2000 stars with the naked eye. If you
are able to count them, that gives you an indication of how prolific I am
going to make you. I am going to make your descendants as the stars of
the sky. He is giving you an idea of the extent of the blessing that He is
going to pour out on Abram as a way of strengthening his faith.

And then we are told in response to that, in Genesis 15 verse 6, in that

very important verse that Paul goes back to over and over, “then he
believed in the Lord and He,” that is the Lord, “reckoned it to him as
righteousness.” Abram’s faith is bolstered by what God says. He believes
the Lord and the Lord accepts Abram’s faith as righteousness. He
reckons it to Him as if he were perfectly righteous and upright man.

Notice again, it is not that Abram is perfect. God has already made
clear in Genesis 13 that Abram is not perfect, in his cowardly conduct
with Sara. Abram is not a perfect man. But Abram is a man who believes
what the Lord says to him, and as the Lord confirms His promise to Him,
Abram believes and God reckons him as righteous.

And then we read this. The Lord goes on and says, “I am the Lord
who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees to give you this land to possess
it.” So God has settled him on the issue of descendants and he believes
that the Lord is going to fulfill His promise. But Abram is still wondering
after many years, he still has no heir and he has no land that he owns.
Then the Lord says what, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the Ur of
the Chaldees to give you this land.” And so immediately another question
pops up into Abram’s mind. “Yeah, and by the way Lord, how will I know
that I am going to posses this land?” So the Lord raises this question, and
it is because the Lord is already in Abram’s heart. He raises another
question. And Abram responds, “How may I know that I may possess it?
Lord, I don’t have it yet. You told me that you were going to show me a
land. And you were going to give me a land. How may I know that I will
possess it?”

So beginning in Genesis 15:9, we have this interesting scenario. We

have read it before but let’s read it again.

So He said to him, “Bring me a three year old heifer and a three year old
female goat and a three year old ram and a turtledove and a young
pigeon.” And then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two and
laid each half opposite the other. But he did not cut the birds. And the
birds of prey came down upon the carcasses and Abram drove them
away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram
and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. And God said to
Abram, ”Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a
land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four
hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and
afterward they will come out with many possessions. And as for you, you
shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of
the Amorite is not yet complete.” And it came about when the sun had
set that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and
a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. And on that day, the
Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have
given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river
Euphrates: The Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the
Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the
Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”

And so in that context, the Lord, in order to reinforce Abram’s

assurance of the promise that He was indeed going to give him the
blessing of the possession of this land, God enters into this covenant
making ceremony.

Now as we have said, the symbolism is fairly straightforward. The

animals are slaughtered to indicate the sanction of the covenant. That is
how serious the covenant is. It is a life and death matter. The
slaughtered animals remind us of the consequences of not obeying the
covenant. Now be it done to me, as we have done to these animals is
what the covenant-maker is saying as he walks between the pieces. This
is reiterated, by the way, in Jeremiah chapter 34. Now we have looked at
that passage as well. But we need to turn there quickly. Look at verse 18:
“And I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have
not fulfilled the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when
they cut the calf in two and passed between its parts—” then verse
20: “and I will give them into the hand of their enemies….” He says in
verse 20, “Okay, I will give the men who have transgressed my covenant,
who have not fulfilled the word of the covenant which they made before
me when they cut the calf into and passed between its parts, I will give
them into the hand of their enemies.”

So they will be dealt with even as the animals were ritually slaughtered
and notice the words of verse 20: “and I will give them into the hand of
their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life. And their
dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the
earth.”

Now, get the image again. What is part of the essence of the promise
that God has made both to Noah and to Abraham? Blessing for the
family. He will be brought into a family. There is going to be a family of
blessing. You are not going to be saved in isolation. You are going to be
part of a people. In a covenant-making ceremony, animals are
slaughtered. In this passage here in Jeremiah 34:20, we are told their
dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the
earth. What is the point? The point is God is saying, “I am going to cut
you off from your people. And there is not even going to be anyone to
bury your body when you die. You are going to drop down where you die
and the birds of the sky are going to pick the flesh off of your body. That
is how much I am going to cut you off from your people.” Now that is the
greatest curse that there can be, to cut off from the people of God because
it is with the people of God where the blessing of God dwells.

So, in the language of the covenant, that ritual of the slaughter of the
animals reminds us of the consequences of violating the covenant, not
just in death, but being cut off from the people of God. It is severe
language. You see the seriousness of what is going on.

Notice that in this passage, the birds of prey are present there in
Genesis 15 as well. You remember in Genesis 15:11, Abram spends his
time driving away the birds of prey from the carcasses. So they are there,
symbolically representing what happens to covenant breakers. But when
the sun goes down, Abram falls asleep and God repeats to him, His
promise about the land in verse 13: “know for certain that your
descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, but where they
will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years, but I will bring
them out in the fourth generation. They will return here.” He is telling
Abram ahead of time exactly the plan that He has for Abram’s
descendants: to sojourn in Egypt, to come out of Egypt, to reestablish the
land that the Lord had given to Abram.

And then we are told in verse 17, a smoking oven and a flaming torch
passed between the pieces. That is a theophany, God is manifesting
Himself in the form of a smoking oven and a flaming torch, not unlike the
way He manifest Himself in the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in the
Exodus. It is a visible representation, a visible manifestation of the
presence of the Lord. And we are told that the Lord Himself passes
between the pieces. Now, this is so striking, because Abram is the
servant. Abram is the beneficiary of the covenant, and yet it is the One
who has made the covenant, it is the One who has ordered the covenant,
is the One who is the Lord of the covenant, who passes between the
pieces. This is signifying again to Abram, “Abram, if I am unfaithful to
My covenant promises to you, be it done to Me as we have done to these
animals.” So you see God’s complete devotion to making sure that Abram
receives the fullness of the salvation which He has been promised. For
that, Abram does not make a contribution. For that, God does on His
own. So the gracious element of what God is doing here in salvation is
overwhelming.

We have said several things here that are striking. In the Near East,
there is no example in comparative religion of a god entering into
covenant with his people. There is no example in comparative religion.
So you have already got in Genesis 2, in Genesis 6, and Genesis 12 and 15,
something that you don’t find in any other religion. A God entering into
covenant with His people.

Now, you have the God taking the role of the vassal, and saying,
“Abram, let me confirm to you that I will fulfill My responsibilities in the
covenant. And let me do it by taking upon Myself, a self-maladictory
oath. Let me do it by calling down curses upon Myself if I do not fulfill
My obligations to you in the covenant.” So we see a picture of just how
far God is ready to go in assuring His people of the blessings which He
has already promised them.

Now there is an important New Testament passage which addresses

this as well. And if you have your Greek text, I would like you to turn to
Hebrews chapter 9 and we’ll begin in verse 11. Here, the author of
Hebrews proceeds to demonstrate the supremacy of the New Covenant.
He is wanting to show why the New Covenant is more effective than the
Old Covenant. He tells us in Hebrews 9:11 that Christ is the high priest of
the temple not made with hands. So He is the high priest of a heavenly
temple, not an earthly temple. The temple that Christ is the high priest of
was not constructed by human hands, however talented, in the
wilderness. He is the high priest of a heavenly temple. Secondly, we are
told in Hebrews 9:12 that “He enters into a holy place not by the blood of
animals, but by His own blood.” In other words, He, unlike the high
priest of old, did not have to offer a sacrifice for Himself because of His
sin before He offered a sacrifice for the people, because He was the
sacrifice for the people. He was perfect. He was sinlessly perfect and
therefore He did not have to offer a sacrifice. He entered by His own
blood. That is covenantal language there, by the way. So His sacrifice
then, we are told, in verse 12 was not repetitious. It didn’t have to be
offered year after year after year on the Day of Atonement. It was once
for all. And His sacrifice, we are told in verse 12, obtains eternal
redemption. Then, we are told in verse 13 that if the blood of bulls and
goats was effective for ceremonial cleansing, how much more will the
blood of Christ cleanse the conscience. So that is His argument in verses
13 and 14. He is piling up ways in which the New Covenant is superior to
the Old Covenant, ways in which Christ is a superior high priest. So, in
contrast to this symbolic and ineffective and temporary Old Covenant
ritual, Christ’s priestly work is actual, effective, and eternal.

And then He comes to verse 15, and says something very, very
strange. Look at it with me:

“And for this reason, He is mediator of a New Covenant”

He is the mediator of a New Covenant. That is, the basis of Christ’s

mediatorship of the New Covenant is His sacrificial death. Through His
mediation, the better promises of the New Covenant have been effected.
So Christ’s effectiveness in the offering of the sacrifice is why He is
understood as the mediator of the New Covenant.

Furthermore, in the inauguration of this New Covenant, the

mediator’s death, we are told, in the second half of verse 15, has taken
place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed
under what? Under the first covenant. So His death has taken place in
order to bring redemption for sins committed under the first covenant.
He has died as a ransom for sins in connection with the first covenant.

And as you know, the normal way that the author of Hebrews uses the
term First Covenant is to refer to the covenant with Moses. He is
speaking of the Mosaic Covenant. Why would He speak of First Covenant
there? He knows about the Abrahamic Covenant, because He talks about
it. Why is he talking about the First Covenant? Because the author of
Hebrews is writing to whom? Hebrew Christians. And he is contrasting
the Old Covenant which they see optimized in what? In Moses. He is
contrasting that with Christ. So throughout the book of Hebrews, you
have this contrast between Moses and Christ. The Old Covenant ritual
was established in the time of Moses and the New Covenant reality
established under Christ. Okay. This is why he refers to it as First
Covenant. He is contrasting the Second Covenant or the New Covenant
to that Mosaic Covenant.

Now, the translation of the word, diatheke here in verses 16 and 17 has
been widely debated. It is a very, very difficult passage:. If you look at
your English translations, I bet you get two or three different translations
of this, if you have the NIV, or NASV, or King James, or New King James
or some of the other translations represented in here. They are translated
different ways and there is a wide debate over that. The authors precise
line of argumentation from Hebrews 9:15 down to verse 18 is
problematic, however you render diatheke in verses 16 and 17, and so I
want to give a brief consideration of this passage because I am going to
argue that this passage uses the language of diatheke and that this
passage actually elucidates what we have just read in Genesis chapter 15.

The RSV reads this way: “therefore He is the mediator of a new

covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal
inheritance” and by the way, the language kleronomias is used there for
that inheritance which is another word that can either be taken as a last
will and testament or of a covenant, since a death has occurred which
redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant,
diatheke.

Now here is how the RSV renders it: “for where a will is involved,”
that is how they have translated diatheke, where a will is involved, the
death of the one who made it must be established. And the word there
for established is pheresthai. For a will, diatheke , that is the second time
they have translated diatheke that way, for a will takes effect only at
death since it is not enforced as long as they one who made it is alive.
“And hence, even the first covenant…” and covenant isn’t repeated there,
but it is implied. Even the first was not ratified without blood.

Now, at least two aspects of the context favor rendering your

translation of diatheke in verses 16 and 17 as a last will and testament.
Now let me, for those of you who are working out of your English, just
look for a moment, let me get the English open here. For those of you
who are working out of your English, just for a moment, let me point to
you what to be looking for. It will help you as you work through this. The
problem is, how do you translate covenant in that first clause, in verse 16
and covenant in that first clause in verse 17? Some Bibles translate
everything leading up to verse 16 as covenant. Every time diatheke
appears up to that point, they will translate covenant. Then in verse 16
and 17, they will translate it as will or last will and testament and then
they will switch back to covenant again. So that he is talking about
covenant, covenant, covenant, and then last will and testament, last will
and testament, and then covenant.

Other Bibles will translate this consistently covenant all the way
through. If you have a New American Standard Version, you will see
covenant is translated consistently all the way through. I am going to
argue that that is the correct translation at this point but I want you to
understand why people have translated it in different ways. It is very
hard to understand the language or the way the language is being used
here. Here are the reasons why some people favor translating diatheke as
last will and testament here.

First, they argue that the mention of an inheritance, the kleronomias in

verse 15 can be easily correlated with the idea of a last will. I mean, we
are familiar with that. Last will and testaments usually mean inheritance,
you know. If you are fortunate enough to have family and a little bit of
money left over when it was all said and done, there is usually an
inheritance along in there.

Secondly, the idea of a diatheke being activated upon its maker’s death,
and notice that language, in the RSV, the second verse is translated this
way. For diatheke take effect only at death. Now that is not true of a
covenant. But it is true of a testament. A testament is effected at death.
And so that kind of language strongly suggests that this means testament,
and not covenant. And so the usage of diatheke by those who argue that
it needs to be translated as testament here and covenant elsewhere is
something like this: You are saying it is like an ad hominem argument.
The argument is, he is speaking in Greek, these people are familiar with
contemporary Greek usage of diatheke to refer to last will and testament
and it is kind of an ad hominem argument. It is saying, this is why the
New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant but it is a play on words
because diatheke means both covenant in the Bible, and it means
testament in secular Greek, and so what he is doing is switching the word
meanings and saying, this covenant is almost parallel to the way we do a
contemporary testament. So that is the argument that is put forward by
people who want to translate it as testament. It is an ad hominem
argument designed to capitalize on the common legal meaning of the
terms. And it is argued that you can find testamentary analogy to the
work of Christ in some early Christian writings. Nevertheless, there are a
number of difficulties involved in translating diatheke as testament in
verses 16 and 17.

First, verse 15, views Christ as a covenantal mediator. He is explicitly

called mesites. And testaments do not have mediators. They may have
executors, but they don’t have mediators. Second, the introduction of
verses 16 and 17 comes with the Greek, omou gar For, you know the idea
is that suggests that the covenants that are being talked about in verses 16
and 17 are the same things that are being talked about in verse 15. It is a
“therefore” kind of argument.

So how can you switch from one to the other when you are doing a
“therefore” kind of argument? Verse 15 is manifestly talking about a
covenant. He is the mediator of the New Covenant.

Third problem with translating this as testament: The whole of

Hebrews 9 verse 15-20 is concerned with a covenant inauguration
ceremony. And verse 18 draws the conclusion from verses 16 and 17,
“Hence, even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.” So you
have these two verses captioned by linking phrases. With omou gar you
have got the for on the front end and then you have in verse 18, the othen
oude. You have the connecting language, so the whole argument is
connected and that fact argues against connecting covenant in 15,
testament in 16 and 17, and then coming back to a covenant again in verse
18.
 Fourth, if the singular diatheke means a testament in verse 17--see it
there: diatheke gar epi nekrois. Now think about that phrase for a
minute, Greek scholars. And think about the tense of that. Look at it.
diatheke gar for the covenant, singular, epi nekrois bebaia. If diatheke
means testament there, why is the plural phrase epi nekrois used? One
covenant, many bodies. In favor of covenant in verses 16 and 17, we can
argue that by rendering diatheke here consistently throughout the
passage, each of these difficulties is resolved.

And in response to the contextual argument that inheritance in verse

15 implies that we are talking about a last will and testament, we can
point out that the idea of inheritance does not rule out the meaning of
covenant, because the Bible makes it clear that the covenant entails an
inheritance.

What is Paul talking about in Galatians 3? I know that is another

disputed passage, but the idea of inheritance is linked to the concept of
covenant in the scripture. The real challenge for us making sense out of
this passage and translating it covenant in verses 16 and 17 is to relate
covenant to death, particularly with regard to its role in the activation of a
covenant, since a covenant inauguration does not require the death of the
covenant-maker. And that would be the end of the covenant. The
covenant inauguration doesn’t require the covenant-maker to die. It is
easy to understand how a last will and testament relates to a death. It is
effected by the death of the one who has made the last will and
testament. It is harder to understand how the covenant relates to the
death spoken here in verses 16 and 17.

Now there are two ways in which a covenant may be linked with
death. First of all, there is the symbolic representation of the death of the
covenant-maker in the slaying of the animals in the covenant ritual
ratification. Okay. Those slain animals symbolically remind the
covenant-maker of the consequences of breaking the covenants. That is
one way that death relates to a covenant inauguration ceremony. The
other way, of course, is the death penalty that in fact results from a
person breaking the covenant stipulations. And those are the two ways
that death relates to covenant.
 Now bearing that in mind, covenant fits well with at least two features
of verse 16 and 17. First of all, look at verse 16 and the word, established,
or pheresthai. That word can bear the meaning represented. It can mean
represented. Listen to what B.F. Wescott said: “It is not said that he who
makes a covenant must die, but that his death must be brought forward
or presented or introduced upon the scene or set in evidence, so to
speak.” So the point of this is that we would then render instead of
saying, in verse 16, something like this: “For where a covenant is there
must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.” We would say, we
would render it this way: “Where a covenant is there must of necessity be
represented the death of him who made it.” The author’s point here
would be to draw attention to the symbolizing of the oath of self-
malediction, which was of course the sine qua non of the covenant-
making ritual.

Second, using or translating diatheke as covenant makes sense of the

phrase epi nekrois in the first half of verse 17. epi nekrois, how should we
translate that? Over dead bodies. Look again at your English
translations for a moment. For a covenant is valid, and here is how the
NASV tries to wrestle with it, the covenant is valid only when men are
dead. But the literal translation is the covenant is valid only over deaths.
You know, supply “the body.” The covenant is only valid over dead
bodies.

So why a covenant valid over dead bodies? That phrase, if so

translated, “a covenant is made firm over dead bodies,” would be an
allusion to the slain animals of the covenant ceremony, not to the person
making the covenant, but to the animals that are slain in the covenant
ceremony. It is made firm over dead bodies. Whose dead bodies? The
dead body of the covenant maker? No, of the animals in the covenant-
making ritual. And so this phrase would serve as a further elaboration on
verse 16, reminding the reader of the precise symbolism of the pledge to
death involved in ratifying the covenant.

Whereas, if you translate this passage, testament, in 16 and 17, then

verse 17 ends up being more or less redundant. I mean it just says the
same thing again as has been said in verse 16. So, there are good reasons
for consistently translating diatheke as covenant in Genesis, in Hebrews 9
verses 15 through 18.

The one difficulty, the one difficulty that remains is what in the world
do you do with verse 17b, the second half of that verse. Which reads, “for
it is not in force,” or “it is never in force while the one who made it lives.”
What do you do with that? For the meaning covenant to be sustained in
this context, the reference to death here would have to be taken as having
in view the symbolic death involved in ratifying the covenant. This is
what Robertson says, you will find this on page 144, note 13 in Christ of
the Covenants. “The greatest difficulty with this interpretation of verse
17b is that it requires the reference to the death of the covenant-maker to
be interpreted as a symbolic rather than an actual death. This problem
could be resolved by suggesting that the writer has assumed a violated
covenant. Given the situation in which the stipulations have been
violated, a covenant is not made strong so long as the covenant-maker
lives. In this case, the death envisioned would be actual rather than
symbolical. This line of interpretation contains some commendable
features, but the strong contextual emphasis on the covenant
inauguration points in the direction of the symbolic rather than the actual
death.”

So however we take diatheke in this passage, and I think we have a

better argument for covenant than for testament here—however it is
taken, one point emerges clearly from the author’s argument: the
connection between the inauguration of the covenant at Sinai by Moses
and the inauguration of the New Covenant by Christ. The first covenant’s
mediator, Moses, inaugurated his covenant how? By the sprinkling of the
blood of calves and goats. That is what is spoken of in verses 18-20 here
in Hebrews 9. The New Covenant’s mediator inaugurated this covenant
by the shedding of His own blood. That is stressed in verse 12, verse 15,
and in verse 26. So the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice of
Christ is manifest in that it brings cleansing from sin, which the sacrifices
of the first covenant could not, as the author will later argue in Hebrews
chapter 10 verse 4. And its effect is permanent in duration. You
remember he uses the phrase over and over, once for all, once for all. It is
permanent in duration. It does not have to be repeated. The author
reiterates this in his next usage of diatheke in Hebrews 10:16. And again
there, he quotes from Jeremiah 31 verses 33 and 34, emphasizing the
covenantal promise of the law written on the heart and the forgiveness of
sins.

And he concludes, Hebrews 10:18, “now where there is forgiveness of

these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.” Now that the
forgiveness of sins has been realized in the New Covenant, there is no
longer any need for the sacrifices of the Old Covenant in the termination
of the repeated sin offerings. The finality of the sacrifice of Christ, and the
New Covenant which it inaugurated, is confirmed.

Now, why look at that ceremony, why look at that passage? Because it
confirms along with Jeremiah 34 that the people of God understood
precisely what that weird ritual in Genesis 15 meant. You see it referred
to again in Jeremiah 34. The understanding of those slain animals is
perfectly clear to everyone who reads that passage and you see it again
right here in Hebrews chapter 9. But even by the time you have gotten to
the New Covenant in the context of a Greek-speaking culture, still there is
an understanding of the significance of the slaughter of those animals.
And when we come back next time, we are going to pick up with the
covenant with Abraham, and we are going to continue on through with its
confirmation in the Covenant of the Circumcision in Genesis 17.

 The Abrahamic Covenant – Covenant Signs
Covenant Sign Implications
If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to Genesis
chapter 17, Genesis chapter 17. In Genesis chapter 17, in verse 1, we read,

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to
Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be
blameless. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I
will multiply you exceedingly.” And Abram fell on his face, and God
talked with him, saying, “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And
you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your
name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make
you the father of a multitude of nations. And I will make you exceedingly
fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from
you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your
descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting
covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will
give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your
sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I
will be their God.” God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you
shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout
their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me
and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be
circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin;
and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every
male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout
your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought
with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A
servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money
shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised
in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he
has broken My covenant.”
 Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy and inspired Word. May He add
His blessings to it. Let’s pray.

“Our Lord and our God, we bless You that we again have the
privilege of coming aside from the world for these hours to devote
ourselves to the study of Scripture. We thank You for the faithful men
and women who have gone before us living the truths of this passage
and indeed of all the truths of your Word. We thank you, O God, for the
faithful teachers who have gone before us who have labored many hours
and years in order to explain with great clarity and precision the
meaning of these words. We recognize that we are very dependent upon
their faithful labors and as we attempt to grapple with these truths and
set them forth in a logical order that we might comprehend them and
meditate upon them and eventually communicate them. We ask you, O
God, for Your grace. Give us the grace of understanding as we attempt
to absorb many things in a brief period of time. But help us most of all,
O Lord, not to fail to wonder and to praise and to worship at the truth
we learn. Cause our breath to be taken away. Move us to worship and
to obedience through all that all we learn. We ask it in Jesus’ name.
Amen.”

Today, I want to look at this aspect of the Covenant of Grace in the life
of Abraham which teaches us a good deal, not only about the Abrahamic
covenant, but teaches us about covenant signs. We have already begun
our study of Abraham. We have seen God’s dealings in little vignettes
with Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15. In Genesis 17, God comes again to
confirm His promises to Abraham. He is not initiating a new relationship
with Abram. He has already had that relationship with Abram. Now He
is going to confirm them by giving him a sign in his flesh and by
renaming him. You notice how God, as Abraham’s patience is continually
tested over the years, is kind to give continuing encouragement to Abram
so that he will believe. You know early on, God comes to him in Genesis
15 to reassure Abram of His promises. And now He comes again in
Genesis 17, and He not only gives an external sign to assure him of that
covenant promise, by He gives him a mark in his own flesh to assure him
of that covenant promise.

Now, in the process of looking at Genesis 17, I want you to key in on

two things in particular. Very often our Dispensational friends like to
categorize Old Testament covenants, in particular, into two categories:
One, they will call conditional, and the other they will call unconditional.
In other words, they will say there are basically two types of covenants in
the Old Testament. Some are conditional. And some are unconditional.
And naturally they will pick for instance the covenant with Moses as a
conditional covenant because of the stress of the law there, and then they
will pick the covenant of Abraham and they will call it an unconditional
covenant. But I want you to see that in this aspect of the Covenant of
Abraham, and you catch it even in your English Bible just reading
through Genesis 17, there is a lot of stress on Abram’s responsibility.

I am not attempting to take away from the grace of this at all, you
understand. This does not distract from God’s grace one iota. But there
is a tremendous stress on the mutual obligations of Abraham in
embracing the gracious promises of God given to him in this covenant,
because God reminds Abraham that he needs to walk before Him in
integrity.

Now understand again that God is not saying Abraham, the

stipulation for My blessing you is that you are perfect. Okay, your
translations may confuse you there. “Walk before Me, and be
blameless.” God is not asking Abraham to be perfect there. But He is
asking Abraham to walk before Him with a whole heart; that is, to be
wholly devoted to following Him and to believing the promises that He
has given him in Genesis 12 and reiterated in Genesis 15. He is asking
Abraham to be a wholehearted man. A man who loves Him from the
inside out. A man of integrity.

And you are used to that language from the book of Job. You know,
over and over, Job protests, “I am a man of integrity, Lord. I have never
lost my integrity in this whole process.” Now is Job claiming to be
sinless? No. But what he is saying is, “I have never lost trust in this
whole process.” Now, of course towards the end of the book, Job loses it.
And he has to eat his crow by the time you get to the final encounter with
the Lord at the end of the book. But through much of Job’s suffering, he
could say, with legitimacy, “I have kept my integrity.” You remember his
wife early on encourages him to abandon his integrity, curse God and
die. But Job hangs on to that. In other words, what he is saying is, “I
have remained wholeheartedly committed to You, O Lord; in faith I have
believed You, I have trusted You even though everything in my world was
falling around my ears. I have continued to trust in You.” And so God
opens the reiteration of the covenant here with the words, “Walk before
Me and be whole, be blameless, have integrity.”

And that is the language of perfection there. Don’t mix that up. Don’t
think that God is calling on Abram to be sinless. That is not what is going
on. But even that having been said, isn’t it interesting that in this
gracious covenant, the opening parlay of a chapter which is designed to
assure Abraham of God’s grace, there is a command to Abraham: “Walk
before Me and be blameless. Walk before Me and have integrity.”

Are you following what I am saying here? We immediately see a stress

on Abram’s responsibility in the covenant. So is it a gracious covenant?
Yes. Is it an unconditional covenant? Well, that depends on what you
mean by that. Is God’s grace, is His love towards Abraham conditioned
upon Abraham’s love towards Him? No. Otherwise, we are all undone.

But is there responsibility in this relationship? Are there mutual

obligations in the relationship? Absolutely. You can’t get away from it in
this chapter. In fact, even the sign which God gives for the purpose of
assuring Abraham of the promise that He has made to him has another
side to it, and you saw that in the last few verses that we read: “Abram, if
you fail to apply this sign, to yourself and to your descendants, you are
cut off from My covenant. It is such an act of deliberate rebellion and
disobedience that you are cut off from My covenant by the very fact that
you have refused to apply this sign.”

So this whole chapter reeks of mutual obligations. Is it a gracious

covenant that God has established with Abraham? Absolutely. Does
that mean then that there are no obligations on Abraham’s part?
Absolutely not.

Now that is a wonderful paradigm to remember because it will help

you keep from misunderstanding Paul. You see, there are scads of people
who think that if they embrace Paul’s doctrine of grace, that it means that
there are really no obligations in the Christian life. It goes something like
this. “God saves you by grace and so you don’t have to obey Him, it is just
that you want to obey Him.” You will hear that distinction. You don’t
have to obey God, but you will want to obey God. That is not the Pauline
ethic. The Pauline ethic does not say you have no obligation to obey Him,
you just do it because you want to. You just do it because you love Him,
etc. No. There is still obligation in the Pauline ethic. Because the
Pauline ethic is the Old Testament ethic. The Pauline ethic is the
Abrahamic ethic. Grace and obligation are not opposites. That is what I
am pressing at here. Grace and obligation are not opposites. In fact, Paul
makes it very clear in Romans chapter 5 that one of the most important
functions of Spiritual grace, capital “S” Spiritual grace, grace that is
worked in us by the Holy Spirit, that one of the most important functions
of Spiritual grace in us is to do what? To enable us to perform our
obligations. And that is why he says that grace reigns through
righteousness. That is, by the way, his response to the Judaizers’ attack
against him that says, “Paul, your doctrine of justification by faith leads to
disobedience. It leads to passivity on the part of people who believe it,
because then they say, ‘Well, if I am justified by faith, it doesn’t matter
what I do. It doesn’t matter how I live.’” And the apostle Paul doesn’t
argue, “No you have misunderstood my doctrine of justification.” He
pulls back and he basically says, “No, your misunderstanding at that
point is at a deeper level than my doctrine of justification. You don’t
understand what grace is for.”

Grace is for, among other things, the enabling of the believer to do

what God has called the believer to do. So it is not that there are
obligations for believers under the New Covenant, but in Christ there are
no more obligations. That is not the contrast of Old Covenant to New
Covenant. It is that those who are under the law, that is, those who are
under the Covenant of Works, outside of Christ, whether they are in the
Old Covenant or the New Covenant, are condemned by the law. The law
is their judgment. The law is their condemnation. But when they are
brought under Christ as their federal head, whether they be under the Old
Covenant, or under the New Covenant, the grace which reigns in them,
enables them to say with David, “how I love Thy law, O Lord.” So the law
no longer is their condemnation. Okay.
 Now, that having said, I want to zero in on a couple of things in this
passage. I want to zero in first of all on the nature of this covenant
sign, how it functions in the covenant with Abraham. And I want to zero
in on covenant signs themselves. We didn’t say much about Genesis
9 and the covenant sign of the bow in the clouds when we were studying
Noah. And that is because I want to look at covenant signs here in a sort
of semi-consolidated state, so that you can see how covenant signs
function in the Old Testament. It will help you tremendously with your
sacramental theology in the New Testament if you understand how
covenant signs function in the Old Testament. It will get you out of all
sorts of problems that various theological groups have gotten into.

And let me just mention a few of those problems ahead of time so that
you can see a little bit of where we are going. Obviously, the most
distinctive difference from a Protestant view of sacraments is a Roman
Catholic view of sacraments. They have seven sacraments as opposed to
our two sacraments. How does the Catholic church get to its number of
sacraments? How does it define its sacraments? And how does it get to
its view of how sacraments work? My contention is that they get there
because the Roman Catholics doctrine of sacraments have absolutely no
point of contact with a biblical view of covenant signs. It grew up in a
context in which that theology was ignored for the sake of other things.
And I can tell you a little bit about what those other things are later on.

But there are even differences within Protestant churches on signs.

Many of you will have come into contact and maybe some of you have
come out of a background like the Church of Christ which argues that
repentance, belief and water baptism by a Church of Christ minister (by
immersion of course, because that is the only baptism that the Church of
Christ recognizes), is necessary for salvation. Particularly if you have
come from a Baptist background, my guess is that you have really butted
heads at some point in your life with that Church of Christ teaching,
because one of the distinctive things about Baptists is that Baptists do not
believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. The Church of
Christ, the Campbellites, various groups like that that appeared in the
1830’s and 40’s and have existed ever since here in America, they really
butt heads on that. They both believe in immersion. They both believe in
adult believer baptism only, but Baptists don’t believe that water baptism
is necessary for salvation; Church of Christ folk do.

Now how does the Church of Christ get to that point? Again, I would
argue it is because they do not understand the nature of covenant signs.
What about our Seventh Day Baptist friends? Or our some of our
Adventist friends, or some of our Mennonite friends? Folks who are into
the “sacrament of foot-washing”? Now why is it that we don’t foot-wash
in our particular circles in general? Let’s all pretend like we are together
on this. Why is that we don’t practice foot washing? Didn’t Jesus
institute that in John 13? Why don’t we do that?

The answer is that it is related to your doctrine of covenant signs. And

I think I can explain all of the issues related to those questions simply by
giving you a grounded understanding of what a covenant sign is. So those
are my goals today: to show you a little bit about the nature of the
Covenant of Grace with Abraham and also to talk about Covenant signs.

Sacraments
Now let me start off by defining a sacrament for you, and then we are
going to refine and specify this definition several times in class today. We
will start off with a basic definition and then we are going to refine it as
we go on. Now, our Reformed Baptist friends don’t like to use the term
sacrament. It sounds a little too Catholic to them. So they will use the
term ordinance, which is a perfectly good term by the way. And by using
that term, they are simply trying to distance themselves from
misunderstandings of the word sacrament in the Roman communion
and they are emphasizing that it is an ordinance in the sense that it was
something commanded by God. So when you see the word ordinance
used, that is why that word is being used.

A sacrament is an action designed by God to sign and seal a

covenantal reality communicated by the Word of God. The weakness or
the frailty of human faith welcomes an act of reassurance. Understand
again that the signs of the covenant all function to reassure believers of
the promises that God has made to them in the covenant. Nowhere in the
Bible will you find a covenant sign which effects a relationship. A
covenant sign always reflects a relationship. Covenant signs do not
effect a relationship, they reflect a relationship.

Now, what do I mean by that? I mean that God, by giving Abraham

this covenant sign of circumcision, did not enter into covenant with
Abraham by virtue of that covenant sign. No, it is the other way around.
God was in relationship with Abraham and in order to reassure Abraham
of the promises that He had made to him, He gave him the covenant sign
to confirm that promise. Now, right there you automatically see a
polemic against a Catholic view of sacraments. The idea that the mere
application of the covenant sign actually saved somebody would have
boggled the mind of any self-respecting Hebrew, because that is never
how a covenant sign ever functioned. That is a concept utterly alien to
the thought-world of the Old or the New Testament. Now, our Roman
Catholic friends are really defenseless in this particular area. The
covenant signs do not effect a relationship, they reflect a relationship.
Their function is to reassure us in the weakness of our faith.

Now, let me just mention in passing, there is a wonderful passage in

Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 7:14. You remember that glorious passage
—it is the passage about Immanuel. It is the promise of Immanuel, that
Isaiah gives to the King, despite the fact that the King refuses to ask for a
sign. Turn with me briefly to Isaiah chapter 7. Ahaz had been preparing
to go to war against the Assyrians and everyone in Judah was fearful that
Judah was going to get wiped out. God sends Isaiah to Ahaz to assure this
wicked King that the Assyrians were not going to wipe out Judah. And as
an added bonus, God says to Isaiah, “Tell him to ask Me for a sign, I will
give him a sign to assure him.” So Isaiah goes in and he says, “Ask a
sign.” Look at verse 11 –

“‘Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as
Sheol or high as heaven.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, nor will I test the
LORD!’”

Now, Calvin on this passage gives a beautiful discussion of why what

Ahaz did was not in fact pious, but rebellious. It might initially sound to
you like Ahaz is saying, “I won’t test the Lord. I mean I am not going to
ask for a sign from the Lord.” As if that is pious when the prophet has
come to him and says, “You ask for a sign.” And the King says I am not
going to ask for a sign. And Calvin comments that God had determined
that Ahaz and Judah needed a sign, and by golly, when God tells you,
“You need a sign,” you need a sign. So there is nothing pious about
saying, “Well, Lord, I am not going to ask for a sign,” when the Lord says
you need a sign. And Calvin applies that to baptism. Many people say,
“Why do we need to do baptism or why do we need to observe the Lord’s
Supper? Why can’t we just dispense with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
and just do the preaching of the Word?” And Calvin says, because when
God tells you, you need a sign, you need a sign. Because that sign is there
to buttress the weakness of faith. Okay. So again, read that passage, it is
a good treatment by Calvin. Pick up his commentary on Isaiah, look at
the area right around Isaiah 7 say roughly from verse 10 on down past
verse 14. It is a good treatment.

Now, let’s pick up in Genesis 15 to give a little context. Let me begin

by talking with you a little bit about the context of the institution of the
sign of circumcision. As you remember, God has covenanted with Abram
in Genesis 12 and 15. And in Genesis 16, what has happened? What
happened in Genesis 16? Abraham grew weak in faith. And what did he
do? I mean Abraham basically attempted to bring about the promises of
God through human designs. He said, “Well, you know Lord, I have been
waiting for a long time, and I don’t see any children. My wife came to me
and suggested that I sleep with her maid, Hagar, and that we have
children through her.” It was a common custom of the day, and perfectly
socially acceptable. This is Abram’s strategy. He had attempted to bring
about the realization of God’s promises through sinful human designs
and it, of course, resulted in disaster in his family life, and would
continue to be a disaster in his family life for many years to come.

And so in the context of that failure of Abraham, that deed reflecting a

lack of faith, God institutes an abiding mark for Abraham and his
descendants: Circumcision. He gives it to remind Abram of His
covenantal promises and to remind Abram that He Himself will bring
them about. God renews the previous promises that He has made to
Abram and He reiterates them.

Let’s look at those promises. There are at least five of them, and we
will look at them as they appear in the passage. In Genesis 17:2, (1) He
tells him again that He will establish or He will make firm His covenant.
In Genesis 17:7,He says that He will include Abram’s descendants in the
covenant. So He has reaffirmed His covenant commitment. (2) He as
reconfirmed that Abraham’s descendants will be entailed in this
covenant. (3) He reiterates the Immanuel principle in Genesis 17:7-8,
when He says, “I will be a God to you, and to your seed, and to your
descendants.” So He reiterates, I will be your God, you will be My
people. (4) In Genesis 17:8, He says that He will give that land to
Abraham and his descendants. So the land promise is renewed. And (5)
then He reiterates this: that Abram’s seed will be multiplied so that he is
the father of many nations and kings. And He does that several times.
He does it in verse 2, verse 4, verse 5, verse 6.

Now in that context the sign is instituted. The promises have been
reiterated. Now as I have said before, notice also that along with these
promises, there is an emphasis on Abraham’s obligation. And that is seen
in at least two ways. First of all, it is seen in God’s Word to him in verse
1. “I am God Almighty, walk before Me and be blameless.” Now think
again, how significant that statement is in light of his failure in Genesis
16. Again, that is not a call to perfection. It is not that He is saying,
“Okay, Abraham, you sinned in chapter 16, don’t do that again,” although
that might be implied. The point is not that you sinned then, be sinless
from now on. The point is, “Abram, what you have just done, is showing
Me that your heart is struggling, so be wholehearted, be a man of
integrity. Continue to walk with Me. Continue to trust Me. Continue to
believe in Me.” This is a command, it is an exhortation. It is an
imperative for Abraham to respond to God’s covenant promises in faith.
So that is the first part of the responsibility you see here.

But the second part is that Abram is to be faithful in having the

covenant sign applied to himself and to his descendants. So Abram is to
show his responsibility in the covenant, both by believing God’s promises
and by obeying Him about applying the sign that God gives, and we see
this in verse 9. Look with me there. “And God said to Abraham, ‘My
covenant you shall keep, you and your seed after you and their
generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep between Me and
between you and your seed after you to be circumcised every male among
you.’”

Now that is interesting language. The covenant is the relationship

which exists between Abraham and the Lord and it has existed since
Genesis 12. And yet now, in Genesis 17, God is saying, look at the words
again, you can look in your Hebrew text there, especially in verse 10, this
is the covenant. “This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me
and between you and your seed after you. To be circumcised every male
among you.” Isn’t that an interesting way to define the covenant. God
says first in verse 9, you must keep My covenant. And then He defines
the covenant, not in terms of the relationship that He has with Abram,
but in terms of the sign of circumcision. Isn’t that an interesting way of
speaking? In this context, the closest possible identification is made
between the sign of the covenant and the covenant itself. The closest
possible identification is made between the covenant sign, which is
circumcision, and the covenant relationship. In fact, they are so closely
related that the sign is said to be the covenant and the covenant is said to
be the sign. This is My covenant that every male among you shall be
circumcised.

Well, I don’t think that it would be improper at all to translate it by the

way of dynamic equivalents, “This is My covenant sign, that every male
among you be circumcised.” But the literal language is, “This is My
covenant, that you be circumcised.” So what we have here is a
relationship between a covenant and the covenant sign in which God is
stressing the closeness between those two things. To be in the covenant
is to be in the covenant sign. To reject the covenant sign is to reject the
covenant.

The closeness of the identification of the covenant and the covenant

sign is evidenced in the strange story of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26, when
the Lord comes and meets Moses on the way and seeks to kill him. Okay,
here is Moses, the herald of the covenant, the lawgiver of Israel, he is on
his way to meet and challenge Pharaoh as the representative of God, but
Moses himself has disobeyed the injunctions of Genesis chapter 17. And
the Lord meets him on the way and seeks to kill him. And we are told
that the moment that his wife throws the foreskin of their son at his feet,
the Lord relents. Now Moses is giving you a hint as to what the nature of
that altercation was about in that passage. And apparently the Midanite
wife didn’t want her little boy being circumcised. But immediately when
the Lord seeks out Moses, she knows what is going on and the
circumcision is performed hastily, the foreskin thrown at his feet and the
covenant herald is spared. So the seriousness of this injunction is seen
there.

The Function of Covenant Signs

The sign provides an outward sign of entrance into the external
covenant community. To receive circumcision, God makes clear in
Genesis 17, is to be considered part of the covenant community. Now
again, notice, receiving the sign of circumcision does not in and of itself
make you even part of the visible covenant community. It confirms the
fact that you are already part of the covenant community, whether you
are an adult or child.

So, when someone converts to Israel as they did in Esther chapter 8, it

is not the receiving of the sign of circumcision that affects their entrance
into the covenant community. No. That seals their entrance into the
covenant community. You make your entrance into the covenant
community as an adult by faith in the Old Testament just like in the New
Testament. And, of course, under the Old Covenant, not only adults were
seen as part of the covenant community, but their children were seen as
part of the covenant community.

But again, it is not the applying of the sign to the child that makes that
child part of the covenant community. No, the sign seals that child as
part of the covenant community. In other words, it confirms; its purpose
is to assure. Now, that having been said, the reverse is also true: that to
refuse to receive the sign of the covenant, was what? It was a repudiation
of the covenant community. Not because the sign is a magical thing, but
because repudiation of the sign represents rejection of the Lordship of the
Lord. If the Lord says, “Circumcise,” and you say, “Well, I don’t want to
be circumcised,” you have just repudiated His Lordship. And so the idea
of being part of His community and repudiating His Lordship are
mutually exclusive. By the way, there you have a wonderful argument
against anti-lordship salvationists. There are people who say you can
have God as Savior, but not as Lord. Well, try that on somebody in
Genesis 17. I want to be part of Israel, but none of this circumcision
stuff. No. The Lord is Lord, and when He says “Be circumcised,”
repudiation of the sign gets you cut off from the covenant, not because
there is something magical about the sign, but because in repudiating the
sign, you are repudiating the rule of God. Is that clear as mud?

Secondly, what does the sign do? It signifies the need for cleansing
from sin and the availability of that cleansing. Blood is obviously used
throughout the Pentateuch in the process of atonement rituals,
propitiation rituals, expiation rituals, and the bloody nature of the
sacrifice reminds of the necessity of cleansing in the covenant
relationship and the provision of that by the Lord as you enter into
relationship with Him.

What else does the sign do? The sign also has the significance of
sealing the elect for the possession of eternal life. The elect are sealed
into the certainty of ultimate possession of the promises. Now
immediately, by introducing the word elect, I have raised a question that
will really only become apparent as the story of Isaac and Ishmael plays
out, and as the story of Jacob and Esau plays out later in Genesis. There
is a sense in which I am speaking anachronistically here about Genesis 17,
but let me point that the family line has already been introduced in
Genesis, in Genesis 3 and 4 particularly. Eve is the mother of Cain and
Abel and Seth and they are two different types of boys amongst those
three boys. Cain is one type of boy. Abel and Seth are another type of
boy. And they are of entirely different lines. And Moses makes that
crystal clear, not only in Genesis 4, but in Genesis 5 and then again in
Genesis 10 and 11. So the idea of having a godly line and an ungodly line
out of the same family is not unheard of in the book of Genesis. And that
theme is going to be developed in the life of Esau and Jacob. It is going to
be developed in the lives of Ishmael and Isaac to a lesser extent. So
though this may not be being highlighted in this specific passage here in
Genesis 17, Ishmael is circumcised. Isaac will only later be circumcised.
Okay. Though this theme is not highlighted here, it is very important.

What is the function of a covenant sign? It is to confirm, right? It is

to assure. It is, in short, to seal (if I can jump ahead), because the
language of sealing in the Reformed tradition comes from Ephesians
chapter 1, and what is said by Paul about the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

What is a seal, according to Paul? It is a deposit guaranteeing the full

payment of that which is promised. It is a mark, a stamp, an official seal
guaranteeing God’s fulfillment of His promises. That language there in
Ephesians apparently very much reflects what was done in Paul’s time
with regard to commercial seals and guarantees. It is like the seal that
would have been on a document stamping and confirming that the person
who had made the pledge in the document was going to carry out his
obligation like we would do with a notary public today. I just got a thing
in the mail, we just refinanced the house because the house rates are so
low. But, the people who are refinancing the house want to make sure
that termites don’t eat my house up. And so we had to have a termite
inspection and after the termite inspection came in, they said fine, there
are no termite problems here but there are conditions which could allow
for termites to eat up your house. And so, you must sign a sheet with a
notary public acknowledging that, so that you take the rap if you don’t do
something about that. We own more of this house than you do, and so we
want you to take care of this. I mean they are putting us over the barrel
here. They are saying we want you to take care of those conditions that
might lead to termites. And so we want a notary to sign that thing so that
you are obligated to do your side.

Well, this is a little bit of the other way around. This is like a sign
where someone says, “I have promised you a million dollars, here is your
down payment of $1,000, and here is my seal, saying you can take me to
court if I don’t give you the rest of that million dollars.” Or it might be,
the seal may actually refer to the deposit itself. It was used both of those
ways in Paul’s day. So a covenant sign functions to seal the promises of
the covenant. Are you with me so far?

Now, the minute you say that, you have the question, “What about
those in the covenant community who turn out to be rotten eggs? What
about the Esaus, what about the Ishmaels?” Actually, what you are
asking about is, “What about the reprobate? What about those who do
not believe? What about those who do not embrace the covenant?”

Well, by saying what we have just said about what the covenant sign
does, when we say that the covenant sign has the significance of sealing
the elect for possession of eternal life, we are emphasizing that because
the covenant sign does not work just because you applied it to somebody;
the covenant sign works in those who by grace believe. The covenant sign
only brings with it condemnation for those who repudiate the covenant.
But for those who believe, it is a means of grace whereby the
elect are assured of their possession of eternal life.

By the way, at this point, we still haven’t gotten to an issue that

separates Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists—that is people
in the Reformed community who don’t believe that you baptize children
and people in the Reformed community who do believe that you baptize
children. In the visible covenant community, there are always going to be
some who are elect and some who are non-elect. Or to put it in a less
Calvinistic way, there are going to be some who believe and there are
going to be some who merely profess to believe and yet do not in fact
believe. There are going to be false professions, in other words. The
people who appear to be part of God’s people on the outside, but who are
not, in fact, part of that covenant community.

Now, the sealing function of the covenant, in its beneficial aspect, only
benefits the elect, only benefits those who believe. The Westminster
Confession gets this so right. Isn’t it interesting that the Confession talks
about justification and sanctification and adoption and perseverance
before it talks about assurance, because you can’t be assured of what you
don’t have. So since covenant signs function in this area of confirmation,
their beneficial effect is totally contingent upon the reality of faith in the
one who has received it. Because you can’t assure somebody of
something that they don’t have.

Fourth, because the sign signifies and seals inclusion into the external
community of God’s Covenant of Grace, circumcision does not lead to
presumption but to personal responsibility. In other words, the sign does
not make you passive, it leads to responsibility based on the principle of
grace. The sign and the seal itself does not bring covenantal blessing.
The sign evidences covenantal blessing and assures covenantal blessing.
But the fact of a covenantal relationship always entails responsibility to
the one who has covenanted. The covenantal relationship may be
fulfilled in either blessing or curse. If the person who has received the
sign of the covenant rejects the covenant, by not being a person who
believes and repents, by refusing to truly embrace the covenant in the
heart, then that person, by the sign of the covenant, by the sign of
circumcision, is sealed to a double curse. Not only is that person cursed
unto the Covenant of Works, they’re cursed for a false application of the
Covenant of Grace. And hence, Paul’s words in I Corinthians, don’t eat or
drink of the table of the Lord if you do not discern the Lord’s body, lest
you eat and drink unto yourself condemnation.

We have talked for a few moments about what the covenant sign does.
We have talked about the context of the institution of the sign of
circumcision. We have talked about the giving of the sign of
circumcision. We have talked about what the sign does. Now, the reason
that I raised this question of what the sign does is so that when you are
talking with those who do believe that covenantal signs actually convey
saving grace elementally, if you are talking to a Roman Catholic who
believes that the application of water to a child actually washes away
original sin and initiates them into a sacramental system whereby grace is
conveyed, then you need to be aware that that bears no relation to how
the Scripture views covenant signs.

But I am also talking about it because all of us in the Protestant tradition

who are in polemic against a view that says that giving of a covenant sign
or the taking of a covenant sign in the Lord’s Supper actually elementally
conveys grace, all of us who are in polemic against that particular point of
view have the question posed to us by our congregation members: “Well
then, why do you do it? What does it do?” I mean, if say it doesn’t do
this, expect for someone to say, “Well, what does it do and why do we do
it?” That is why I am taking so much time on this, because you will have
the question asked to you if you haven’t already, now I am just trying to
get you ready for it.

Circumcision
Now, we have talked about what the sign itself does. But let me talk
about what this sign of circumcision is not first. The sign of circumcision
is not a sign of entrance into manhood. I mean it is true that, for
instance, Ishmael was circumcised at 13. And it is also true that other
cultures around Israel practiced circumcision, but that they tended to do
it to their male children at the time that they would have been considered
to have become men. But the covenant sign of circumcision instituted
here in Genesis 17 is to be applied to those who are eight days old. So it is
very clear that this sign, though it may be similar to some of the practices
of other nations around Israel, was very different in the content of its
meaning.

Now, an interesting aside—and I have no idea of its theological

significance whatsoever—many of you may have seen a book by S.I.
McMullen and the book is called None of These Diseases. It has gone
through several editions. I think it is out in a second or third edition
now. But he points out something very interesting. There is an element
in our bloodstream, in the male bloodstream, and it is a part of the blood-
clotting mechanism. On the eighth day of a male child’s life, he has 100
more times of this element in his system than on any other day. And
McMullen shows on these charts how this all works out. Now whether
that was God’s reason for choosing the eighth day or not, I don’t know. It
is interesting, isn’t it, that the Lord would have commanded eighth-day
circumcision and this blood-clotting agent is especially present on that
day. I mean the Lord did make the body, He did know what He was
doing.

Secondly, let me go on to say, that the sign of circumcision was not

merely a sign of Jewish ethnicity. This is made clear from Genesis 17.
Who is to be circumcised? Everyone who is a male in the household is to
be circumcised. And does that include even those who have been bought
with money by the head of the household and who dwell within the
tents? Oh, yes it does. If they’re Midianites, yes. If they are Moabites,
yes. No matter who they are. If they are under the headship of the
covenant head of the household, they are to receive the sign of
circumcision if they are male. That is very clear in Genesis 17. The sign is
to be applied to Abraham, to his seed, to his descendants, and to those
who dwell within his tent.

So the sign is not merely a sign of ethnicity and I want to remind you that
this was understood even at the very end of Israel’s national experience.
When you go to the book of Esther, and you remember after Haman’s
plot has been exploded, and Mordecai wins in the end and even though
the king cannot repeal the law that he had made allowing people to go
plunder the Jews, he did make another law that said the Jews would be
allowed to defend themselves against anyone who attacked them. And
furthermore, if the Jews were attacked by somebody and the Jews
defeated those people, the Jews would have the right to plunder them of
every thing in their family. They would be allowed to take it legally for
themselves. And in Esther chapter 8, what are told? That because of that
decree, there was a fear of the Jews in the hearts of the people and many
of them became Jews. So, here you are under the rule of the Ahasuerus.
Here you are under the rule of non-Jewish, blatantly idolatrous Gentiles.
In the book of Esther, Israel is scattered amongst the nations. And yet,
here are people becoming Jews. So the idea of circumcision only being
applied to a pure bloodline was not the case in Genesis 17, and it wasn’t
the case at the end of Israel’s national history in the book of Esther. So
very clearly, this is neither a sign of entrance into manhood, nor is it a
sign of ethnicity.

And finally, let’s make it clear that the sign itself does not bring about
salvation. The sign confirms the covenant promises. How are those
covenant promises received? By faith. And so if you will flip quickly in
your Bibles to Romans chapter 4, you will see this. Paul is talking about
Abram’s being reckoned as righteous by God. Romans 4, verse 10. And
he says, “How then was Abram reckoned righteous? While he was
circumcised or uncircumcised?” And his answer: “Not while he was
circumcised, but while he was uncircumcised.” Why is Paul saying that?
Because Genesis 15:6 happened before Genesis 17. Abram was declared
righteous in Genesis 15:6 by the Lord before circumcision was ever
instituted. So this is part of Paul’s polemic. So he goes on to say, he
received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith.
So the sign of circumcision was for the purpose of confirming the
promises which had been conveyed to Abraham and received by how? By
faith.

It is important to see that that element of faith is a significant aspect of

the Old Covenant too. Because oftentimes, when we get into an argument
about whether you baptize babies, or whether you baptize covenant
children or not, the argument is in the Old Testament, you know, faith
wasn’t the issue, it was just being part of the external covenant
community. In the New Testament, faith is the big issue. Well, here is
Paul in Romans 4 saying that the whole function of covenant signs is to
seal the promises of God made to us in the covenant. Signs which are
received by faith alone. Paul argues this adamantly in Romans 3 and 4
and elsewhere.

But Isaac when he was eight days old could not exercise saving faith. So,
does that make null and void the command of Genesis 17? No, it doesn’t.
We will come back to that in a minute.

Now, what are the implications. My point for mentioning the Romans 4
passage is to make it clear that the sign itself having been applied does
not bring salvation, because faith is the instrument used by the Spirit to
convey saving benefits to God’s people. And therefore, Ishmael can
receive the sign of the covenant in Genesis 17, but that doesn’t mean that
Ishmael is truly a member of God’s elect. Esau can receive the sign of the
covenant and yet Esau, by his failure to exercise faith, can repudiate the
covenant. So just merely having the covenant sign applied doesn’t save
you—this idea that some people have that by giving people covenant
signs, they are saved. And you know this is abroad in a lot of churches. It
is not just the Roman church, but also the Mormon church. Not only do
they think that the sign has a saving effect on you, they think that you can
go back and be baptized for your dead ancestors and get them into
heaven too. Baptism for the dead. This idea is alien, however to the
context of Genesis 17.

Covenant baptism
Now, what are the implications of covenantal baptism then? We have
said what the sign is not. And we have said a little about what the sign
does, but what are the implications of the covenantal sign of
circumcision? Let me mention at least three implications. First, it is
apparent from the immediate history of circumcision in Genesis 17
through 25, that physical descent does not make children of God. So just
being part of the physical lineage of Abraham and just having received
the sign of the covenant, doesn’t mean anything if the reality of faith is
not there. That is clear from the story of Ishmael. It is clear from the
story of Esau. It is clear from the story of Joseph’s brothers. This is a
theme in the book of Genesis. And it reappears throughout the Old
Testament. People in the same family, godly parents, some righteous,
some wicked. So, the covenant sign itself doesn’t make you a child of
God. It doesn’t in the very applying of it effect its blessings universally.

Now, early on, in the Christian church, there was a similar issue with the
Lord’s Supper. There were people who began to think that by the very
taking of the Lord’s Supper, grace was conferred, universally, to all who
took it. In fact, it was argued relatively early on by some, for instance,
that in the Lord’s Supper, Christ was actually physically, tangibly present
in the elements of the Supper. And that because of that, everyone who
fed upon the host, was in fact, feeding upon Christ by definition, and
therefore, grace was conferred to everyone who fed upon that host. This
was a view that said by the actual partaking of the Supper, one is ipso
facto partaking of grace.

Now, why did view come about? Let suggest three reasons why that view
came about. Again, why am I giving you all this? Because we do live in a
day where Protestant kids grow up in Protestant churches and they don’t
know what justification by faith means. They go off to college, they meet
with a charismatic Catholic guy who is just bubbly and enthusiastic and
such, and he tells them that the Protestants have always misunderstood
the Catholic position on justification and boom, the next thing you know,
the kid comes home, and he has joined a Catholic church.

So we have lots of kids who don’t know anything about doctrine. I was
talking to a RUF minister yesterday who had worked with a PCA young
person, one who had grown up in a PCA church, and converted to the
Catholic church last year. Why? Because he didn’t know up from down
doctrinally. If that isn’t an argument for youth directors teaching the
Bible, doing expository ministry, and teaching Christian doctrine, then I
don’t know what is.

We live in a day and age where nobody knows any doctrine, and they
don’t think it really matters. And we do live in a day and age where
people fluctuate denominationally, and they make huge jumps. They go
from Protestant to Catholic or Protestant to Orthodox or this or that.
And we need to be ready to answer questions to that regard.

Source of erroneous views.

Now, we need to take time here, because I think it will help you to
understand where the Catholics got their ideas. First of all, I think it is
very clear that there was not a covenantal understanding of the doctrine
of the sacraments in the early Christian church. Especially the sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper. There was not a covenantal understanding of the
whole of Scripture. When you are immersed in the thought-world of the
Old Testament, and you know about the Passover meal, and you know
that covenant meals are the way that you visibly demonstrate that you are
in fellowship with a person with whom you have made a covenant, and
then you read the Last Supper and the Passover narratives, and you see
Jesus’ heavy allusions to Exodus 12 and Exodus 24 and Isaiah 53 and
Jeremiah 31 and you hear and feel the covenant language and you
remember that the only place where Jesus uses explicitly covenantal
language in all of the Gospels is where? In the Lord’s Supper narratives.
Those are when the words, diatheke come out of His mouth in our
Gospels.

Now does that mean that He never spoke about it anywhere else? No. It
doesn’t mean that. But it is interesting that God, the Holy Spirit,
determined that that would be the place where He would highlight the
covenantal link between His dying work and the Old Covenant. And right
there in the narratives you see this incredible connection with the Old
Testament theology of covenant. But the early church did not pick up on
that. And I could walk you through the fathers and show you how so
many of them missed that particular element of the Lord’s Supper. So
problem number one is that very few of the church fathers knew Hebrew.
You need to know this. Origen knew Hebrew. Clement of Alexandria
knew a little Hebrew. Jerome knew Hebrew. Augustine, the greatest
theologian of the early church, especially in the west, knew neither
Hebrew nor Greek. And you can watch him. You can watch Augustine
get into trouble and every time it will be related to the places where he
doesn’t know his Hebrew and Greek. Now there is a good argument for
knowing the original languages. Learn your languages. So we have got a
problem. We don’t have a covenantal background for the Lord’s Supper
here.

Secondly, the early church, in both the east and the west, was teaching its
theology and doctrine in a context, especially for the first four centuries,
where the most widespread and dominant philosophical school was the
Platonic School. Now, you know that there were many different kinds of
Platonism. There was early Platonism. There was middle Platonism.
There was Neo-Platonism. And it was Neo-Platonism that was dominant
in the time that the early church was doing its work. And Platonism, of
course, advocates an epistemology that is called realism. Now there is a
sense in which all Christian epistemology is some form of realism. All
Christian theology advocates some form of realism. But one of the weird
things that Neo-Platonism did as early sacramental theology was being
developed, is that it took the idea that in every particular there is an
actual manifestation of the form. Does this conjure up anything from
college philosophy or high school ancient literature? Do you remember
the forms and the particulars? Why is it, Plato says, that when you see an
object like a chair and know that it is a chair? Because the chair possesses
chairness. And the form of the chair is reflected and manifested in a real
way in the particular expression of that in our reality. Now the form is
more real than that reality, but it is reflected and manifested in some part
in that particular reality of the chair. And that is why you just
instinctively know chairness. You instinctively know cowness and
horseness and treeness and all those things.

Well, you can see how easily that might be applied to sacramental
theology. The host, the form of Jesus Christ, is present in the particular.
So a little Platonizing philosophy comes along and pushes us in a
direction of seeing the elements of the Lord’s Supper in that kind of
category, in that kind of philosophical category that believes that the
reality is present in the particular.

And then add one last thing on top of that. Do you remember that one of
the first Christological heresies in the early churches was the Docetic
heresy. Remember, docetic comes from the Greek and means to seem or
to appear, and the docetic heretics argued that Christ was not truly man,
He only appeared to be human. And over and over from the time of
Irenaeus and Tertullian on, in response to the docetic heretics, the early
church fathers would argue that if Christ only appeared to be flesh and
blood, then what are we partaking of when we eat the Lord’s Supper?
And I believe that later Catholic writers have gone back and they have
read more into that argument than is in fact there. I think that the early
church fathers, especially like Irenaeus and Tertullian, may have been a
little bit uncareful in the way that they spoke. However, I think
theologically they were absolutely hands down correct in choosing them.

I mean you can see the argument if taken in its proper way, is a powerful
argument. If Christ says, “do this in remembrance of Me, represent the
meaning of My atonement, the meaning of My giving My body and My
blood, represent that through this covenantal meal, this body, this bread
represents My body, this wine, it represents My blood, do this in
remembrance of Me.” If He did that, why did He do that if He really
wasn’t flesh and blood? That is a good argument. That is a sound
argument. If you know that Christ wasn’t flesh and blood, why did He
institute the Lord’s Supper which emphasizes His human nature in its
function in the total atonement which His person offered?

Now, there is no question that the humanity of Christ is emphasized by

the nature of the signs, but later, Catholic writers go back and say, “Ah
hah, you see what they are arguing there is that the elements themselves
are actually the body and blood of Christ.” However, I am not sure if you
couldn’t have set Irenaeus down and said, “Now is that what you are
saying?”, I am not sure he wouldn’t have said, “What? What are you
talking about? I am arguing against docetic heretics.” And he couldn’t
have anticipated a doctrine of transubstantiation being developed 900
years later. So he is a little bit unguarded in the language that he uses
and perhaps he overreacts a little bit in his language because of the
docetic heretics, but you see already with the lack of Hebrew, and the lack
of understanding of the covenantal background of the sacrament, and
with Platonic philosophy, and with this unguarded language against the
docetic heretics, how you can suddenly have Christ being physically
elementally present in the sacrament and the sacrament actually
conveying saving union with Christ by the very taking of it.

So, where does sacramental realism come from? I suspect there. I

suspect that that is where it came from. And if you are dialoguing with a
Roman Catholic and you want to sit down and talk with me further about
that, I would be happy to sit down with you and let’s expand on that
particular thing. Because I think that one thing that helps us when we
talk with Roman Catholics is to respect their history; the more intelligent
the Catholic, the more respectful they are of their own history, and if you
show that you know their history and that you respect it, but that you
respectfully disagree, you will get a lot of mileage in discussion.

A second implication – God deals with families.

A second implication of the covenant sign of circumcision: Certainly we
have to say that one of the implications of this covenantal sign of
circumcision is that God deals with families. God deals with families in
His covenant signs. The created order of families is not ignored in God’s
redemptive provision. The family was part of the creation ordinances and
it is part of the redemptive promises in the covenant with Noah and,
surprise, surprise, here it is again in the covenant with Abraham. God
has committed Himself to the restoration of family units in His plan of
redemption. That doesn’t mean that we trust natural sense as the basis
for our hope of redemption, but it does mean that this has something
radical to say about how we do youth ministry in the church and without.
You do not evangelize a family through the children. You evangelize a
family through the parents. And the Christian community has been
doing that backwards for about fifty years for lots of good reasons.

I understand. I am sympathetic, I feel your pain, okay. But let’s say a

child is converted, and then you send the child back into the home. Now,
what does everybody, Christian and non-Christian psychologists, and
non-psychologists, say is the most formative factor in the rearing of
child? It is not just the instruction of the parent, it is the model of the
parent. And you know, when you send a redeemed child into an
unredeemed unit, you are inviting spiritual and developmental
schizophrenia. And there have been a lot of well-meaning folks that say,
okay the way we can get to these parents is through the kids. Uh uh.
Upside down. Upside down. And by the way, this is the new wave in
youth ministry. I mean this is hitting everybody. If you haven’t read
Mark Devries’ book, Family Based Youth Ministry, you need to go
out and pick it up now. Printed by Intervarsity Press. Lots of people are
recognizing this. What do you do? Do you get to the parents through the
kids? No. You minister to families. You minister to parents
simultaneously as you minister to the children and you look at this as a
covenantal unit. This is almost the view of counseling that Jim Hurley
has been pushing for many years in the wilderness. It is seeing that for
the life of the body in terms of evangelism and discipleship, whether we
want to believe it or not, we are not isolated individuals, we are part of a
connected covenantal unit. And the rest of that unit cannot be ignored
without there being a problem somewhere down the line. We must
evangelize the whole family. So youth ministers, you just got another job
helping parents parent, calling parents to what is their responsibility in
the covenantal rearing of their children. And suddenly, instead of you
being the surrogate, you know the one who steps in to do the job that is
really their job, suddenly, you are a helper, you are an assistant, you are a
resource to help parents to be equipped to do their responsibilities in
rearing children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is radical.
Especially if you view church structures and parachurch structures for the
last fifty years as how we have gone about it. But it is the biblical way. So
food for thought.

The third implication of covenant circumcision

The third implication of covenant circumcision, the sign of the covenant,
reminds us is that this is not merely inclusion in the nation of Israel. This
sign is not merely a national sign, it is a religious sign, it is a spiritual
sign. Paul emphasizes this in Romans 4. He does not say that
circumcision was a sign that Abram was the father of the nation of Israel.
He doesn’t say that circumcision was a sign of this national entity that
had developed and of your inclusion in it. He says that circumcision was
a seal of the righteousness of faith. Paul makes it very clear that this sign
is a religious sign. It is a spiritual sign. Now that, of course, invites
parallels with baptism. And I would like to do that for a few minutes.

Circumcision has become baptism in the new covenant.

First of all, remember the phraseology of Genesis 17—look back again at
Genesis 17 and look at the three levels of inclusion in the covenant.
Genesis 17:7, “I will establish my covenant between Me and you and your
descendants.” And then that phrase is repeated numerous times. And
then we get down to verse 10: “This is My covenant which you shall keep
between Me and you and your descendants after you. Every male shall be
circumcised. It shall be a sign of covenant between Me and you and every
male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout
your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought
with money from any foreigner who is not of your descendants.” So who
are the recipients of the covenant sign? Abraham. Covenant head of the
house. This is adult circumcision here folks. For his descendants,
normally infant circumcision is entailed, but in this chapter it is going to
be young men who are circumcised, as in the case of Ishmael. So it is
covenant circumcision and it covers all the males who are under the
authority of Abraham in his household; but it extends not only to his flesh
and blood, it even extends to the servants who are within his tents even if
they are of foreign blood. They have been bought from foreigners, it says,
so you, your descendants and even foreigners who are within your tents.

Now in light of that, take a look at Acts chapter 2. We have been stressing
all along how missiological the formulation of the Abrahamic covenant
is. Abram is blessed to be a blessing. And he is not only blessed to be a
blessing, he is to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Listen to
Peter repeat the language and phraseology of Genesis 17 and Acts 2:38-
39.

“Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit, for the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are
far off.” The promise is to you, to your descendants and even to the
foreigner that dwells within your tent. “As many as the Lord, our God
shall call to Himself.”

So in the very opening proclamation of the New Covenant era, the

language of the covenant of Abraham in Genesis 17 is reemployed in the
Gospel proclamation of Peter and is linked directly to baptism.

Now, another evidence of the linkage between circumcision and baptism

is found in Colossians chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. Remember that in
Colossians chapter 2, especially in the first fifteen verses or so, the apostle
Paul is wanting the Colossian Christians to understand the implications
of their union with Christ. And in verses 11 and 12, he is talking with
them about the implications of their union with Christ with regard to
their fellowship in the death of Christ. In verses 11 and 12, Paul reminds
Christians that they need to remember the specific benefits which flow
from being in Christ with regard to the fellowship that they have in
Christ’s death. That is the argument of 11, and 12 is connected to that. In
13 and 14, he wants them to consider that forgiveness flows from their
being in Christ. And then in verse 15, he wants them to see that freedom
flows from their being in Christ. So, we see at least three benefits
highlighted here: fellowship in the saving benefits of His death,
forgiveness and freedom. All these things are part, Paul argues, of being
in Christ. And in verses 11 and 12 he argues,

"In Him, you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of
Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism in which you were also
raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him
from the dead."

And notice the logic there: “In Him, you were circumcised, having been
buried with Him in baptism.” If you take out the subordinate clauses,
that is the flow of logic. In Him, you were circumcised having buried with
Him in baptism. And so here we have an explicit Pauline linkage of the
language of circumcision and the language of baptism.

Now, I understand, when I discuss baptism, I try and zero in generally on

Reformed Baptist arguments rather than non-reformed Baptist
arguments, because Reformed Baptist arguments are texturally and
exegetically stronger. I would rather answer a stronger argument than a
weaker argument. Most of the time, Reformed Baptists will argue at this
point, “But look, Paul is not talking about physical circumcision here. He
is talking about spiritual circumcision. He is comparing spiritual
circumcision to water baptism, not physical circumcision to physical
baptism.” And Reformed Baptists often think “Well, by saying that, you
see, I have gotten myself out of this idea that Baptism and circumcision
are the same thing. Paul is not really talking about fleshly circumcision
here, he is talking about spiritual circumcision here.”
Well, David Kingdon, a good Reformed Baptist, in his book, Children of
Abraham, admits the futility of that argument. Because the minute you
have linked circumcision and baptism, whether you are talking about
spiritual circumcision or physical circumcision, and whether you are
talking about spiritual baptism or physical baptism, you have just linked
the concepts of baptism and circumcision and what does physical
circumcision set forth, but the reality of spiritual circumcision. Moses
knew that and he talks about it in Deuteronomy 10. Don’t circumcise
your flesh, he says, he says, circumcise your hearts. So it wasn’t that
Moses introduced the idea of fleshly circumcision and the prophets
thought up spiritual circumcision. Moses knew about those things from
the beginning. So there is this linkage between the concepts. What Paul
is saying is these things convey the same meaning. They reflect the same
realities. That is his argument, and that means with regard to the issue of
covenant baptism in the New Testament, it is really a pretty simple
argument as to whether you do or do not practice covenant baptism.

The two questions

And there really only two questions that you have to ask and answer in
order to get the great question answered, which is: “Do you baptize
children or not?”

The first question that you have to ask is this: Is baptism a

covenant sign? Some Baptists want to argue that baptism should not
be understood as a covenant sign. And they attempt to blunt the force of
a covenantal argument by arguing that way. But again, David Kingdon,
and a goodly number of Reformed Baptists will argue and accept that
Baptism is indeed a covenant sign, and there is reason for accepting it so.
The language of the New Testament indicates that baptism is understood
by the writers of the New Testament to be a covenant sign. One example
of that is right here in Colossians chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. Paul
parallels baptism with a covenant sign of the Old Testament and he says
in effect, these are the same things. These represent the same things.
These set forth the same things. But he makes a similar kind of argument
in Romans chapter 6 and he uses the language of covenental realism in
Romans chapter 6.

But perhaps, the best example of that kind of covenantal realistic

language is found in I Peter chapter 3, if you would turn with me there. I
Peter chapter 3. This is a much discussed and controverted passage.
Beginning in verse 18.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order
that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but
made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to
the spirits now in prison…”

You never preach that text without stopping to explain what in the world
is he talking about there. That is a tough passage.

“…who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in
the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that
is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.”

Now, he has just introduced the idea of the flood and then boom, here it
comes, verse 21.

“And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–…”

This is a favorite passage of our Catholic friends and our Church of Christ
friends. How do you respond to that? “Corresponding to that, baptism
now saves you.” Now don’t read ahead. Peter is going to explain himself
but before he does that, let’s stop for just one second and remember the
language of Genesis 17: “This is My covenant in that you are
circumcised.” Now let’s think about Peter’s language so far. This is
salvation that you are baptized. You are seeing Peter, the Jew, using
covenantal realistic language about baptism, just like Moses used about
circumcision, and Moses would never have dreamt that circumcision
saves you. In fact, in Romans 4 and in the book of Galatians, Paul has
already engaged in an extended polemic against the idea that
circumcision saves you. So Paul has already done your theological
footwork for you. Then what is Peter doing? He is doing the same thing
that the Lord does in Genesis 17. He is showing that closeness of
connection between the covenant sign and the covenant itself.
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. Now look at what he goes
on to say.
 “…not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a
good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….”

So Peter, immediately says, “Look folks, I am not talking about water

removing dirt from the flesh. I am talking about that inner baptism of the
Holy Spirit of which external physical water baptism is simply a sign,
corresponding to that, real baptism and by that I mean holy spiritual
baptism, in regeneration and justification and sanctification, that saves
you, water baptism is only a sign of it.” Why? Because it is a covenant
sign.

Now you see, if you don’t understand the sacraments in the New
Testament, as covenant signs, you are really in a fix, when you come to
passages like Romans 6 and I Peter 3, because whatever Peter and Paul
are talking about in those two passages, it does save you. Whatever it is,
it does save you. Peter makes that clear. Whatever he is talking about
here is something absolutely essential for salvation. And if he is talking
about water baptism, abstractly from Holy Spirit baptism, then he is
talking about water baptism saving people.

But if you understand the language of covenant signs, you see how
ludicrous a construction that is. And then when you look at what Peter
himself tells you in verse 21, he is doing everything he can to point you
away from the physical act of water baptism to look at what it
symbolizes. The deeper reality. That is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
So that is the first question that you have to ask. Is baptism a covenant
sign? And we argue from various principles, from Colossians 2 from I
Peter 3, from Romans 6 that baptism is a covenant sign. And in each of
those passages, we have an example of the language of covenantal
realism, where the sign is called the covenant and the covenant is called
the sign, okay. Just like we saw in Genesis 17. So there is the first
question that you have to ask. Is baptism a covenant sign?

The second question that you have to ask is, “Are the children
of believing parents in the covenant under the New Covenant
like we know that they were under the Old Covenant?” Are the
children of believing parents in the covenant, speaking of the Covenant of
Grace here, under the New Covenant, like we know that they were under
the old? And again, we can point to several lines of evidence. The
apostolic preaching of Peter in Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you and to
your children.” The same language as in Genesis 17. We can point to the
pattern of water baptism in the book of Acts and in Corinthians. There
are at least four or five examples of household baptism given us in the
book of Acts, and in I Corinthians; out of seven baptisms described,
perhaps five of them are household baptisms.

Now what am I arguing is this: it doesn’t matter whether there were

infants in those households, although it would be exceedingly unlikely
that there would not be young children. What matters is, is that the Old
Covenant pattern of family solidarity in this great time of evangelistic
revival is still obtained. Cornelius believes, and his whole household is
baptized. The Philippian jailer believes, and his whole household is
baptized. And Luke goes out of his way in Acts 16 to make it clear that it
is the Philippian jailer who believes and the household is baptized. And
then again, Lydia believes and her household is baptized. So we see this
pattern of household baptisms.

What does this pattern of household baptisms mean? It simply means

that God is using the same pattern of dealing in families in the New
Covenant as He did under the Old. Does it mean that everybody in every
family where the head made a profession of faith is ultimately going to be
saved? No. It never meant that in the Old Covenant. Think of Esau and
Ishmael.

But does it mean that God’s same plan obtains under the New Covenant
as it does under the old? That is exactly what it is pointing to. I think
Geoffrey Thomas, the great Reformed Baptist preacher, wrote an article
for the Banner of Truth a few years ago, and he said, “We can all wish
that there was a verse in the New Testament that said either ‘go ye
therefore and baptize babies’ or ‘go ye therefore and don’t baptize
babies.’” But he says, “there is not one of those.” So, we have to figure
this out some other way.

Well, what I am suggesting is, yes, there may not be a verse that says, “go
ye therefore and baptize babies,” but when you ask the question, “Is
baptism a covenant sign?” and you give the answer, “Yes,” when you ask
the question, “Are children of believing parents under the covenant in the
New Covenant like we know they were in the Old Covenant?” And there
is no debate as to whether they were part of the covenant community in
the Old Covenant. Are they still part of the covenant community in the
New Covenant?

When you give the answer of “Yes” and “Yes” to those two questions, and
then you ask the question, “Should then, covenant children be denied the
sign of covenant initiation? The sign of covenant inclusion?” Then the
answer is simple. Two yeses to the first two questions, gives you your
answer to the third. Should children be denied that covenant sign or to
put it positively, “Should children receive the covenant sign of
initiation?” Well, the answer is simple, “Yes.”

The argument from silence

Now, let me talk just a second about a couple of interesting matters. It is
interesting to me, that given that one of the biggest controversies in the
New Testament was the transition of Old Covenant forms that passed
away and the early churches’ adjustment to New Covenant forms, and
one the great examples of that is the ceremonial code including the food
laws. When the ceremonial laws and the food laws are abolished, what
happened in the early church? Controversy. There were always some
people within the early church who thought that those ceremonial laws
ought to be obeyed by every believer, Gentile or Jew. And there was
tremendous controversy because of the passing away of those ceremonial
codes.

Isn’t it interesting to you that nowhere on the pages of the New

Testament is there a controversy over children receiving the covenant
sign of baptism? You see, if in the New Testament, the apostolic teaching
had been that children were to no longer receive the covenant sign,
wouldn’t you have expected there to have been pages of argument and
discussion as to why that was? Let me put it this way. If on the morning
of Pentecost, children were part of the covenant, and on the evening of
Pentecost they were out of the covenant, wouldn’t you have expected
there to be somebody to raise an objection? So there is a thunderous
silence. You know if we grant the idea that children were not to receive
baptism as a covenant sign in the New Testament, is there not a
thunderous silence as to a transition of that magnitude?

You see we know that Proselyte Baptism had been practiced in Jewish
circles for at least five centuries. So the idea of baptizing converts to
Judaism was not a new thought. And we also know that in proselyte
baptism household baptism occurred. So the idea of telling Jews, “Okay,
no longer are we going to practice household baptism,” surely that
controversy would have showed up somewhere on the pages of the New
Testament. There is a thunderous silence there in the New Testament.

And the practical implication of this is really at the level of understanding

whether children are a part of a covenant or not. Do you teach your
children to pray, I mean if they are not part of the covenant, why would
you do that? Do you teach them to pray to their heavenly Father? Well, if
they are not part of the Covenant of Grace, why would you do that? On
what basis may a child pray to God the Father, if she is not a daughter of
the covenant? So there are practical issues.

The argument from the point of doctrine of the church

Now let me pull back and just say, for one moment, from the Baptist side,
the biggest point of issue between the Baptist position on baptism and the
Presbyterian or the paedobaptist position on baptism is not in our
doctrine of the sacraments. It is in our doctrine of the church. The
fundamental text for the Reformed Baptist view of baptism is Jeremiah
31:31-34. The Baptist understands the makeup of the church differently
than the paedobaptist understands the makeup of the church. And
therefore, because of that understanding of the church, he views the issue
of the sacraments differently. Now I am going to give, when we get
together again, I am going to give you a Reformed Baptist, a five-point
Reformed Baptist argument for why they view baptism the way they do,
mode, recipients, etc. And then I am going to give you the counter
argument from a paedobaptist perspective so that I can try and give you,
as best as I can a fair presentation of both views side by side. Because I
want us to at least understand the genius of the two positions. Let’s shoot
at the very best arguments we can find, rather than the weakest ones.
Thank you for your patience, let’s pray.

The Reformed Doctrine of Baptism & New

Testament Practice
If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to Colossians
chapter 2, Colossians chapter 2. We will begin reading in verse 8.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty
deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary
principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the
fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made
complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you
were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the
removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having
been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with
Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all
our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting
of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out
of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the
rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having
triumphed over them through Him.”

Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy Word. May He add His blessing
to it. Let’s pray.

“Our heavenly Father as we continue to study your word together

today and especially as we think about the signs of the covenant, we
pray that you would flood our hearts with a scriptural understanding of
truth. We pray that our own outlook, our own world view would be
changed by it. More than that, we pray O Lord that our hearts would be
changed by it, that we would be drawn willingly under Your
sovereignty to rule in our lives that You would change us, that we might
share the truth with Your people. Teach us Your truth. Teach us Your
Word. We ask these things in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

Last week we looked at the sign of the covenant under the

administration of God in the time of Abraham and specifically we looked
at, of course, circumcision as it fits into the scheme of the Lord’s assuring
Abraham. We said that God had entered into a covenant relationship
with Abraham which was expressed in Genesis 12 and in Genesis 15 and
elsewhere, if we had time to look at it. But we noted that in Genesis 17 a
confirming sign was given in order to assure Abraham of the sturdiness of
the promises that God had given to him. And so we talked a little bit
about circumcision itself, and what that sign means, and then we began
to talk about parallels between circumcision and baptism. As you
approach the subject of Covenant Theology, one of the things that people
always want to talk about is the theology of the sacraments, because,
naturally the covenant and the sacraments fit naturally together.

Why? Because sacraments are, simply defined, covenant signs. That is

what a sacrament is. It is a covenant sign. A sacrament is a covenant
sign. So Covenant Theology and the Doctrine of the Sacraments do
indeed belong together. And there have been various controversies about
the issue of Christian baptism that have raged in our circles.

In the Reformed community, since the sixteenth century, there has been
a hardy debate going on over the mode, the meaning, and the recipients
of baptism.

Since the sixteenth century, there have been those within the Reformed
tradition who have argued that the mode of baptism must be immersion.
They have also argued that the meaning of baptism, because it symbolizes
our spiritual union with Christ, that the meaning of baptism requires
believers-only baptism. And their argument is three-fold: mode,
meaning, and recipients. At the level of mode, the argument is that it
must be by immersion only. At the level of meaning, it is because it
symbolizes our spiritual union with Christ, our regeneration, therefore, it
must only be applied to those who have actually experienced spiritual
union with Christ. And that means, believers only.

Now, in addition to Covenant Theology, your doctrine of the church plays

into that issue. And I would suggest to you, if you have a good healthy
dialogue between a Reformed paedobaptist, whether that paedobaptist is
a Presbyterian or an Anglican, or a Congregationalist, someone who is
Reformed and believes in covenant baptism or infant baptism, and you
have a discussion with a person who is Reformed and does not believe in
covenant baptism or infant baptism, but in believers baptism only, then
one of the areas that you will discuss will be your doctrine of the church.
Because there are certain aspects of the Baptist doctrine of the church
that impact on how they view the issue of baptism itself. And so, your
interpretation of Jeremiah 31, not only in light of Covenant Theology but
in light of your doctrine of the church, factors into a discussion.

In fact, I would wager if you have really had a thorough discussion of

baptism between yourself, if you are a Reformed paedobaptist and a
Reformed nonpaedobaptist or anti paedobaptist, Jeremiah 31 and its
interpretation in light of the New Testament doctrine of the church has
been one of the key points on which you disagreed.

Arguments for mode and recipients of baptism.

The Baptist position.
What I want to do now is look at the arguments that are out there for
mode and recipients of baptism. And I want to start with the Baptist side
on that and give you a little bit of an outline of their argumentation for
the mode of baptism and then the recipients of baptism and then I want
to give you a Reformed padeobaptist response to those arguments, and
then perhaps we can go back and look at a few other things about the
doctrine of the sacraments in general.

We are departing from our chronological textual approach for a moment

to look at a specific topic and issue because it is of standing importance in
our churches. It is not a distinction within the Reformed community
which we see as the grounds for the breaking of evangelical fellowship but
it is one of great significance on both sides.

Historically, Baptists have not acknowledged other baptism than

immersion. And therefore if you have received some other form of
baptism, and you desire to join a Baptist church, and especially a
Reformed Baptist church, immersion will be required. Now that is not
because Reformed Baptists are just being mean and nasty and picky. It is
because of their very theology of baptism that that is required, so there
are definitely ecclesiastical divides on this issue. And it is an important
one to study.

Now that is not the only controversy that is out there with regard to the
sacraments and baptism. One of the other issues that is out there today,
which I will have an opportunity to take a look at later on, is within the
Reformed community with regard to what baptism actually does or
accomplishes, and the whole issue of covenant succession and the
implications of persons receiving baptism and their standing with regard
to the Lord’s Supper. Many of you have perhaps come into contact with
people in Presbyterian and in Anglican circles who believe that not only
should children receive the sign of baptism, they should also participate
in the Lord’s Supper from the earliest capable age. And so the issue of
paedocommunion is one that is out there on the charts and we will talk
about that in some detail later on in the course. So there are lots of
controversies around the subject of the sacraments, and it pays us to pull
back and from a covenant perspective to look at some of these issues and
chart the arguments out as best as we can.

I have drawn this basic argument from the Baptist position from the
works of a Reformed Baptist minister, so as not to misrepresent in any
way the case and also to try and put forward the strongest case I can
possibly put. The argument for mode of baptism is where we will start.
The mode of baptism. And we will start with a Baptist view of the mode
of baptism. The Baptist argument for the mode of baptism is basically
four-fold.

First of all, the Baptist argues that baptism ought to be by immersion

because the meaning of the Greek word, for baptize is to immerse. So the
argument is to baptize is exactly synonymous with the word, “to
immerse.” That is the first point of the argument. That to baptize means
to immerse. And therefore, for a Presbyterian to come along and say,
well we are going to baptize by sprinkling, is to say, from the Baptist
perspective, okay, you are going to immerse by sprinkling. And that
makes no sense to the Baptist. If the word baptize means to immerse,
then that is the way that it is supposed to be done. And so every reference
then to baptism in the New Testament, from the Baptist perspective, is a
compounding argument for baptism by immersion. So the argument is
that when the Lord said, “Go ye therefore and baptize,” what He meant
was “Go ye therefore and immerse.” So the mode was significant and was
specified by the usage of the very word, and in popular circles, this
argument that baptism means immerse will often be carried out this way.
Well, just pick up your Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon and see what the
first meaning of baptism is. It is immerse. And you know that is the sort
of argumentation that you get.

But there is a more sophisticated kind of argumentation for it. You know,
we all know that as you work through your Greek New Testament you
can’t just take the first meaning of a word every time, otherwise, you are
going to be a horrible exegete. You have to look at context to determine
meaning in a number of places where the proper meaning or the precise
meaning is more difficult to tell. But there is a more sophisticated
argument for this perspective as well. In other words, there is an
awareness that there are multiple uses of the Greek words, bapto, and
baptizo, which are the most common verbal forms of the command to
baptize. But the argument is that even in the context of the New
Testament, the preferable understanding of those words ought to be to
immerse, both contextually and lexically. So that is the first line of
argumentation. Now obviously, if I were presenting this from a Baptist
perspective, I would be piling up verses and examples and such. But if we
did that, we would be here all semester. So what I want to give to you is
the skeleton of the argument, which will then enable you I hope to engage
more constructively as you discuss.

Secondly, the argument that you will receive from Reformed Baptist
perspective on baptism says, that what baptism symbolizes, confirms the
idea of immersion. Baptism, it is stressed is a sign of spiritual
regeneration, death to the old nature, and resurrection to newness of life.
And therefore the best sign for that is to be immersed. And you see the
picture, and if you have ever been at an immersionist service, you have
seen the minister, speak about the person being buried in Christ as they
go down into the water, and being raised again to newness of life. Okay.
So the argument is the very mode of immersion best symbolizes, or
reflects, or represents what baptism means. So you notice there again
your understanding of the meaning of baptism impacting both mode and
then later in Baptist arguments, it also impacts recipients.

The third line of argumentation coming from the Baptists is that the New
Testament practice of baptism affirms immersion as the proper mode.
And there are various verses appealed to. The language of the
prepositions in the New Testament, eis, en, and apo are appealed to as
language that actually we should not translate to baptize with water, but
rather to baptize into or in water as the proper New Testament language.
And there will be an appeal to the baptism of Jesus, as He and John go
down into the Jordan River, or an appeal to Phillip and Ethiopian
Eunuch in their going down into the river in order to be baptized. So
there will be argumentation that the practice, that the examples of
baptism in the New Testament confirm, baptism by immersion.

And the final plank of the argument is that the practice of the early
church affirms immersion. The practice of the early church affirms
immersion. So in summary, the argument is the meaning of the Greek
word baptizo points to immersion. The picture of death, burial, and
resurrection, in Romans 6 points to immersion. The testimony of the
New Testament passages themselves point to immersion. And the
testimony of the early church points to immersion. You will also hear
this: the Greek Orthodox church baptizes by immersion, and the Greek
Orthodox church obviously understands Greek better than anybody else;
therefore immersion is the proper understanding of the Greek term for
baptism. So there will be appeals to the New Testament as well as to
history on these accounts.

Now what I am going to do in a moment is to give a four fold response to

these things. But before we do that, perhaps I could just outline for you
some data from the Old Testament which impinges upon our
understanding of mode of baptism in the New Testament. As you know,
baptism is not a unique, New Testament phenomenon. There were Old
Testament baptisms, and that is very important. We are not just talking
about proselyte baptism which was mandated in the Old Testament;
there were actually mandated baptisms in the Levitical code. Let me walk
through with you some of the information for these.
First of all, let’s talk about unrepeatable Old Testament
baptisms.
Unrepeatable Old Testament baptisms. You remember in Hebrews
9:10, there is a reference there to various washings, or various baptisms.
The Greek word there is βρώμασιν, or baptismoy, and it is a word found
in the Septuagint version, the Greek version of the Old Testament. The
writer in Hebrews 9:10 has in mind the various ritual baptisms, or ritual
washings, by which ceremonial defilements were removed in the Old
Testament.

If we investigate the Old Testament, we find that there were two

unrepeatable baptisms in the Mosaic law. First, there was a blood
baptism, and second, there was a water baptism. And then there were at
least eleven subsidiary repeatable baptisms which are associated with the
sprinkling of blood. There is also evidence of purification rites prior to
Moses. For instance, you find purification in Genesis 35 verses 1-5 in the
life of Jacob.

Now, what about the basic unrepeatable washings, the blood washings,
and the water washing. They are found respectively in Exodus 24 and in
Numbers 8. In Exodus 24, we have the sprinkling of the blood of the
covenant at Sinai. That is something that we are going to look at the next
time we are together a little more closely. That passage, by the way, is
referred to in Hebrews chapter 9 very directly. It is also referred to in all
the synoptic Last Supper accounts. Exodus 24, the sprinkling of the
blood, the unrepeatable blood baptism.

Then there is the water baptism. It is found in Numbers 8 and involves

the consecration of the Levites. Now we looked in detail earlier at that
passage in Hebrews chapter 9 where the definition or translation of
covenant is difficult, and I want to remind you of that passage again, but
this time, focusing on a different set of verses, verses 18-20 of Hebrews
chapter 9, where we read:

“Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the
people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the
goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the
book itself and all the people, saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE
COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."

So this particular Old Testament unrepeatable blood baptism is actually

mentioned in the New Testament, and it is highlighted by the author of
Hebrews, in chapter nine verses 18-20. This sprinkling of blood qualified
the Israelites to enter into the presence of God. Exodus 24, subsequent to
verse 8, goes on to record that Moses and the representatives of the
people met and ate with the Lord. So this sprinkling of blood confirmed
that God was the God of Israel. And that Israel was the people of God.
Israel had been adopted into the family of God and enjoyed appropriate
fellowship and this was because of the blood that pointed to atonement
for sin.

Now in light of that Old Testament ritual and its New Testament reality,
because you remember in all the synoptic cup words, especially in
Matthew and Mark, the language of the cup words, that is the words of
institution that Jesus gave when He was explaining the cup to the
disciples. What is their form? It is identical to the Greek Septuagint
translation of Exodus 24:8 with one change. The impersonal form, the is
replaced by the personal pronoun My. We read, “This is the blood of the
covenant,” in Exodus 24:8, but in Mark and Matthew, we read “This is
My blood of the covenant.” So Jesus goes right to that Exodus 24 passage
to explain His atoning work.

In light of that Old Testament ritual and the New Testament reality in the
death of Christ, it would not be surprising if the New Testament used
baptismal language in reference to the death of Christ. And that is
precisely what we found. For instance, in Mark chapter 10 verse 38,
Jesus says, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized
with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And in Luke 12:50, we read,
“I have a baptism to be baptized with and how I am constrained until it is
accomplished.” This usage confirms the position that the purifying
rituals, using cleansing agents other than water, can come under the
classification of baptism in the Old Testament. You know, if someone
comes and says, “Well you can’t count these blood rituals in the Old
Testament as a baptism,” Jesus thinks you can. Not only from what He
says from Matthew and Mark in the cup sayings, but in these passages
here in Mark 10:38 and in Luke 12:50.

So the question is then, “How do you relate the Old Testament covenant
with sprinkled blood with the ratifying of the New Covenant by Christ’s
death?” Clearly the correlation is not because of the mode of the
administration of that baptism. In other words, though we know, that
baptism, in Exodus 24 was by sprinkling, it is not the sprinkling that
connects that with its New Testament realization. Nor, is the link to be
found in the manner in which Christ died.

Now, this is the point: The ritual in its connection with the
New Testament fulfillment is not linked by the external mode,
but by its internal meaning. It is the meaning of the ritual that
links it with the New Testament fulfillment.

The Old Testament ritual of sprinkling of blood was an initiation or

confirmation of a relationship. The death of Jesus was likewise an
initiation. It meant the inauguration of a new state of affairs for Christ,
as well as those for whom He died. And so His death is termed as a
baptism. Now that is the blood baptism that I wanted to look at. The
unrepeatable blood baptism. Let’s go then to the unrepeatable water
baptism.

Now, a question: Where do you find that reference to Jesus’ death

described as in baptismal language? We could go on to Romans 6,
couldn’t we, but we will just stick with the Gospel accounts. There are two
references, Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50, in which Jesus refers to the
experience of suffering and of death that He is going to undergo as a
baptism.

The second basic and unrepeatable washing in the Old Testament is

connected with the first. In Exodus 13, we read that all the first born
males of Israel were dedicated to the Lord, in testimony to the fact that
Israel was indebted to God for all that He had done for her. So the first
born, were to be, as it were, living sacrifices by which the people
expressed their gratitude towards God. Paul, of course, takes up that
imagery in Romans 12:1, and he says in the New Covenant, you are all
living sacrifices, not just the first born. All of you are to be living
sacrifices to the Lord.

But in the Old Covenant, in Numbers 3:11-45, God specified that He

would take one tribe of Israel instead of the first born. And instead of all
the cattle, He takes the Levites’ cattle. And that the Levites would have
no inheritance rights in Canaan. We learn that in Deuteronomy 10:9.
Why? Because the Lord was going to be their inheritance. And then the
Lord makes arrangements for the Levites to be given over to Him in a
public ceremony, a confirmation of their being given over to the Lord.

Before the Levites could be given to the Lord, however, they had to be
purified. How did the purification happen? By the sprinkling of water
and the shaving and washing of their clothes. And then the
representatives of Israel laid their hands upon them, identifying the
nation with them, and they were offered to the Lord as a wave offering.
And then before the beginning of their service, they offered an atonement
offering for their sin in Numbers 8 verse 12.

Now this baptism has a connection with a New Testament as well. You
will remember that in Matthew 3:15, Jesus’ baptism is called baptism to
fulfill all righteousness. In other words, to meet all the requirements of
God. As such, Jesus’ baptism indicated His identification with His
people, the true Israel. He is consecrated for them, on their behalf in
baptism. He is baptized at the age of thirty years, Luke tells us, in Luke
3:23, because that was the age necessary before the attainment of
priesthood, according to Numbers 4:3 and verse 47. The spirit is pledged
to Him to uphold Him in His office of mediation and as our true high
priest, Christ is set apart to the Lord’s servant.

So again, this sprinkling of the Levites is an example of unrepeated Old

Testament baptism. And it is not that we call the purification of the
Levites a baptism, because of the way that they were baptized, by
sprinkling, but because of the meaning of the baptism.

Let me summarize briefly. Two unrepeatable baptisms involve the

sprinkling of the cleansing agent so that it falls upon those who are
thereby cleansed as a ritual cleansing. The mode of the baptism is not at
the forefront. The meaning is. These rites of purification speak of a new
position or relation that has been obtained by the ones who are cleansed.
In the first case, Israel’s unique relation to God as His people. In the
case of the Levites, they have been consecrated and constituted as God’s
priests. So what is being held out in that purification ceremony is not so
much the mode, as it is the meaning of what they are doing.

The repeatable Old Testament baptisms.

Now, let’s look then at the repeatable baptisms in the Old Testament.
There are I said before, eleven subsidiary and repeatable rituals of
cleansing in the Old Testament found in the ceremonial laws. They were
given for a definite purpose, and that purpose was to instill certain truths
about purity and holiness on a spiritual level, by material means. If you
broke these laws, it could put you into the category of being unclean. And
of course, more importantly, the unclean person was excluded from the
place where God met with His people in a special way, that is, from the
tabernacle and later, from the temple.

Now, this kind of exclusion from the privileges of Israel because of ritual
impurity was designed to result from serious sins of the heart. This
wasn’t just an external sort of formalism. This was designed to symbolize
serious sins of the heart. So for instance, after David was convicted of his
lust and adultery and murder and concealment, he said, in Psalm 51:7,
“purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean. Wash me and I shall be
whiter than snow.” What is hearkening back to? Those purification
rituals set forth in the law of Moses. From these words, we see that David
recognized the meaning of sprinkling blood with the hyssop plant in the
ceremonial ritual. He saw that it pointed to the need for the defilement of
the heart to be removed by the atoning sacrifice provided by God’s
covenant love.

Now as the New Testament undoubtedly uses the word baptism in

reference to many or all of these ritual washings, it appears clear that
baptizo cannot mean only immerse when applied to such rituals. Rather,
it refers to washing in general, which always involves the idea of removal
of disqualification, bringing a person or a thing into a new relationship.
The quantity and manner of the water in its application is not prominent.
Although in the promise of cleansing in Ezekiel 36 verse 25, the clean
water is explicitly referred to as sprinkled.

Let’s look at these repeatable baptisms. I will give you names for them, I
will give you a reference for them, and I will give you an indication of
what kind of coverage or washing they involved.

The first kind of repeatable baptism under Moses was at the investiture of
priests. Exodus 29, verses 4-6, Exodus 40:12, Leviticus 8:6. In the
investiture of priests, the washing was to entail the whole body. Their
whole body was to be washed.

The second kind of repeatable baptism was the priestly purification

before entering the tabernacle. You find it in Exodus 30 verses 18-21. In
that case, what was to be baptized, or ritually purified, was only the hands
and feet.

The third repeatable baptism. Purification on the Day of Atonement.

You see this in Leviticus 16 verses 4, 24, 26, and 28. In this case, the
body was to be washed and the clothes were to be washed.

The fourth purification or ritual baptism or ritual cleansing was on the

occasion of the purification of the red heifer sacrifice. Numbers 19, verses
7-8. In this case, again, the body was to be washed and the clothes were
to be washed.

The fifth repeatable baptism was for the priestly purification before
touching or eating the holy offerings. This is referred to in Leviticus 22,
verses 1-7, especially verse 6. Here again, the body was to be washed.

The sixth repeatable baptism, was for purification if you touched

something unclean. Purification for those who touched something
unclean. Whether you were touching a dead body, a corpse, bones, the
dwelling place of the dead, a graveyard or cemetery, prisoners of war, or
body. You find this in Numbers 19, verses 11-22 and Numbers 31, verses
19-24. This purification was to be accomplished by sprinkling ash, a
mixture of ash and water. It involved the washing of the clothes and the
washing of the self.
The seventh repeatable baptism, was the baptism of Leviticus 14, verses
1-9. It was the purification for the infection of leprosy, and it was to be
done by the sprinkling of blood. It involved the washing of the clothes
and the washing of the self.

The eighth repeatable baptism was required if you had eaten meat with
its blood still in it, Leviticus 17, verses 14-16 addresses this. Again, the
clothes are to be washed, the person or body is to be washed.

The ninth repeatable baptism is connected with unclean human

discharges. If you have been made unclean by virtue of a particular
discharge from your body, Leviticus 15, verses 1-13 describes the
purification that occurs by the washing of clothes and the self.

In connection with that, also in Leviticus 15, verses 16-33, the discharge
connected with sexual reproduction whether it be semen or the menstrual
cycle, purification was to be accomplished by the washing of all the body.

And then finally again, the repeatable baptism as a result of coming into
contact with the dead or objects which had come into contact with
persons who are dead. You find this in Leviticus 11, verses 25, 28, 32, and
33. Again, sometimes objects that have come into contact with a dead
person were to be cleansed by water, other times they were just to be
thrown away and clothes of the person who had done this were to be
ritually cleaned.

Now, what can we conclude from this? Let me summarize briefly. First
there is an absence in all of these examples of specification of mode in
these washings, and I would invite you to go back and look them up and
work through them. The emphasis in not on the manner in which these
washings are done.

Secondly, though the Pentateuch makes it clear that the whole person is
defiled by uncleanness, the principle behind these washings indicates
that only that part of the body or only that object effected by uncleanness
requires the application of the cleansing agent. That is interesting, isn’t it
in light of Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet and the exchange with
Peter. “You are never going to wash my feet, Lord.” “If I don’t wash your
feet, then you are going to be unclean.” “Well, then wash all of me.” “No.
This is enough.” It follows an Old Testament pattern. Even though the
whole person becomes unclean by certain ritual acts of disqualification,
specific purification rights are often applied to part of that person, the
hands, the feet, part of the body, etc. Only on one occasion did we see a
specification that the complete body had to be involved.

Thirdly, in every single one of these repeatable baptisms the emphasis is

on the application of water to the person, rather than the action of
putting the person into the water.

Fourth, water in motion is aimed at in several rituals involving illness and

death caused uncleanness. So fresh or running, or flowing, or living
water is specified with the sixth, seventh and ninth of those eleven
repeatable baptisms that we find in Moses. No doubt that is because the
water symbolizes life in contrast with corruption and uncleanness and
death. So flowing or living water is to be used.

Fifth and finally, all these washings were private, all the washings which
could have been total, in other words, involving total touching of every
part of the body with water were private, involved the removal of the
clothes and were self administered. So there is no precedent for
administering a total immersion to another person found in the Levitical
ritual whenever a total washing is involved, it is always self administered.

So baptizo in the Old Testament has the idea of application of a cleansing

agent with a view to removing that which disqualifies us from acceptance
with God. The mode of applying the cleansing agent varies in each of
these baptisms. But the predominant mode is sprinkling or pouring.

Now in further considering the Old Testament background of Christian

baptism, we need to look at the word baptizo with regard to how it was
used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the
Septuagint, and if you don’t want to write Septuagint out every time,
remember it is normally abbreviated “LXX” and that is a lot easier than
writing “Septuagint.”

The standard lexicons recognize that baptizo is an intensive and

prequintative form of bapto, the word which means to dip. And so
apparently the earliest meaning in the Greek language of bapto is
dipping. And from that root, the word came to be used in many
connections. It was used when people talked about dying cloth, the
materials being immersed in the dye. It was used off tempering iron,
since the metal was plunged into the water.

And there are only two places in the Greek translation of the Old
Testament where baptizo is used. The first is in Isaiah 21 and the second
is in II Kings 5:14. In the first it has to do with Isaiah’s vision of the fall of
Babylon, in which he said in Isaiah 21 verse 4, my heart pants and
fearfulness baptizes me, or overwhelms me, or horrifies me. It is used in
a figurative sense. The second reference is in II Kings 5:14 and it is a
description of Naaman’s washing in the Jordan. The common English
versions, of course, indicate that he dipped himself seven times and the
flesh was restored. The Hebrew uses the word, tabal, which had the idea
of dipping though it does not always express mode, and it does not mean
total submersion. But the Greek translation uses baptizo.

Now in the Apocrypha, those non canonical, intertestamental books, the

word baptizo appears. In Ecclesiasticus, the wisdom book known as the
Ecclesiasticus, Jesus ben Eleazar ben Sira(ch), we read something that
sounds a lot like Numbers 19. “Be baptized after touching a dead body
and then touch it again, what have you gained by your washing?” Again
this refers back to that ritual of water purification that we saw. There is
also a reference in the book of Judah.

As we move into the New Testament, looking at passages connected with

purification, Hebrews 9 is important. The writer is contrasting water
purification and the putting away of sin accomplished by Christ with the
Mosaic regulations. Again, at the marriage feast of Canna, there were six
stone water pots, each able to hold about 25 gallons. And these were
used, John tells us in John 2:6, for Jewish purification rites. There was a
ritual of washing your hands before you entered in, before eating, and
that ritual purification was done by pouring a quantity of water over the
cupped hands and then bringing the water into contact with the surface
of the entirety of the hands.
In Mark 7 verse 2, and following, we have the incident where the
Pharisees are pressing for the disciples’ compliance with that kind of
purification, especially in verses 3 and 4. And there is archeological
evidence in the first century that Jews in Palestine practicing ceremonial
washings in cisterns.

Josephus, the Jewish writer of the first century is useful, because he uses
the word fifteen times in his writings. He uses it once to refer to plunging
a sword into an enemy, ten times of sinking or drowning, twice in
destruction of cities in war, once in intoxication, and once in reference to
the purification rituals of Numbers, especially Numbers 19. And these
are consistent with the uses of baptizo by the pre-Christian classical
writers. He says this of these writers: “These use baptizo, baptize, to
describe the sinking of a ship, the drawing or water or wine by dipping
one vessel into another, of bathing, in a metaphorical sense of a person
being overwhelmed by questions or doubt, in addition to the more
general usage of dipping or dying in any matter.” It is interesting to note
that in this latter usage, this verb soon ceases to be expressive of mode.

So, the evidence that we have reviewed as we have looked at scriptural

and extrascriptural usages of baptizo, prior and contemporary to the
writing of the New Testament, indicates this: baptizo was used for a
literal washing with a view to ritual cleansing. It is a washing which
brings a change or which represents a change. And in that context, or in
a religious context, that means a ritual purification which removes
disqualification in the sight of God.

It is interesting to note that the Latin Vulgate, completed by Jerome in

the late fourth century, early fifth century translates baptizo by the Latin
term, mergo, this being the Latin for immerse or submerge or dip. And
our English translators, by transliterating baptizo as baptize instead of
trying to render it in a strictly English term referring to mode, may have
been wiser than anyone else, because they have kept the attention from
being on the mode itself. It remains to determine whether baptizo in
reference to religious ritual necessarily carries the idea of a literal
immersion. But the examples, texturally from looking at the Old
Testament, the New Testament, and extra biblical literature, make it clear
that you cannot linguistically preclude all reference to nonimmersion
forms of this washing. So all of this is piled up evidence to say that the
argumentation that the language of baptizo settles the case just doesn’t
do justice to the realities there in the literature, either in the scriptural
literature or in the extrascriptural literature.

So having said that, let’s look at our four responsive arguments to the
Baptists on immersion. These are the Reformed paedobaptist arguments
for effusion or pouring or sprinkling. You remember we said the Baptist
argument for immersion was that the meaning of the Greek word was
immerse, that the meaning of baptism is best symbolized by immersion,
that the New Testament practice of baptism affirms or confirms
immersion, and that the practice of the early church affirms immersion.
Here is my response.

The Reformed position

First of all, as we have already demonstrated the meaning of baptizo or
bapto or their various derivatives, the meaning of baptizo is much
broader than immerse. And indeed there are places in the Old and the
New Testament where it cannot mean immerse. Let me just reference a
few of them. In Leviticus 14 verses 6 and 51, the Levitical sacrificial
system called for a bird to be slaughtered and to be baptized in the blood,
called for a bird to be baptized in the blood of a slaughtered bird in of the
same kind. Clearly, simply by virtue of the volume of the blood in two
birds of similar kind, there could have been no total immersion and yet
the terminology of bapto was used in that context. Again, it is just one of
those typical ceremonial rituals in which actually the sprinkling is the
more significant thing.

In Acts chapter 1 verse 5, a New Testament example, the baptism of the

Holy Spirit spoken of by the Lord Jesus in Acts 1 verse 5 was fulfilled in
Acts 2 and that baptism was patently not a baptism by immersion. The
Holy Spirit came upon them as they were baptized. They were not
immersed into the Holy Spirit, but rather the Holy Spirit was poured out.

A third example, I Corinthians 10 verse 2. We are told there by Paul that

the Israelites were baptized into Moses in the sea during the Exodus, but
as you remember, the Israelites crossed the sea on dry land. So there was
no immersion for anyone but the Egyptians in the Exodus. So here you
have an example of baptizo being used in a metaphorical sense or a
symbolic sense in the New Testament.

In Hebrews 9 verses 10-23, we have already looked at that reference to

the various baptisms, or the various washings. And again, we have
indicated that those washings were the washings done by the Levitical
priests. Those were the ritual washings and in all the ritual washings, the
water is applied to the body, not the body introduced into the water. So
there is our first line of argumentation. We don’t argue that baptism
never means immerse. In fact, that is not our argument. All you have to
indicate is that baptism does not always mean immerse. At that point it
becomes contextual.

Secondly, the New Testament practice of baptism confirms effusion or

sprinkling or pouring. The New Testament practice of baptism confirms
effusion. Appeals to the Greek preposition en or eis as determinative as
the mode of baptism are inadequate. A golfer may go in or into a sand
trap. That does not mean that the golfer is emerged into the sand trap,
although many golfers may wish they were sometimes when they were in
the sand trap. So the word in or eis can naturally express, but the golfer
goes into the area of the sand trap without being immersed in it. And
that is in fact how those terms are most frequently used.

For instance, in Matthew 3:16, where Jesus and John are said to go down
into the Jordan. First of all, it is not a reference to the mode of baptism at
all. It is a reference to the fact that they left the bank and they went down
themselves together into the water. So if eis in that context means that
they were immersed, then they were both immersed. But clearly the
reference is simply that they left the side of the river and they both went
down into the river. It is not a reference to immersion.

There are places in the New Testament where immersion is extremely

unlikely. For instance, you remember when Saul of Tarsus was baptized,
he was baptized where? Yes. In a house, in the house of Simon the
Tanner. And it would have been extremely unlikely that there would have
been any facility in a house large enough to immerse a person. Even in
the ritual purification founts which have been found in Jewish homes
from that time, they would only allow you to baptize “parts of the body”
such as the feet or the legs. There was no Jacuzzi option in most of the
homes at that particular time.

In Acts 10:47, Peter uses some interesting language, you remember after
he has seen evidence that the Holy Spirit has come upon Cornelius and
his family and he then says, can anyone refuse the water necessary to
baptize these brothers? And that is an interesting way of speaking. The
water necessary to baptize that entire household would have been
significant. It would have been very significant for servants to have to go
and gather that much water up. And so one could see plausibly how
Peter’s rhetorical question which clearly assumes that the answer is going
to be no, of course we couldn’t refuse the water necessary. He assumes a
negative response to that rhetorical question. If in fact, it was going to
require immersion, then I could see someone very reasonably saying,
“Well, actually Peter, it is going to take us about six hours to get that
water, you know. You know, go over to the well, and find some utensils
that would allow us to fill up whatever you are going to fill up to do this.”
I mean, Peter’s question indicates, this is going to be easy. Just get a little
water and we’ll start baptizing here.

In Acts 16 verses 32-33, the Philippian jailer and his family are baptized
with the water which had originally been fetched to clean Paul’s wounds,
which surely would have not been a quantity of water necessary for
immersion. Another passage that you will hear appeal to is the passage in
John 3:23 which speaks about the many waters of Anon, do you
remember that passage where John goes to Aenon because there are
many waters there and the translations deal with it differently. Some
translations will say, he went to Aenon because there was much water
there. And then others say, there were many waters there. And it has
often been argued that John went to Aenon because there was a
significant amount of water, significant enough that he could do
immersions all day long. But the languages of that passage, as well as the
archeology and the geology of it, indicate that many waters is a good
translation of the Greek in the passage and that it refers to a collection of
small pools rather than to a great amount of water. There were many
pools or there were many waters there. So again, that does not provide
some sort of definitive indication that the baptism of John was
immersion.

In the Gospel of John chapters 2 and 3, Old Testament purification was

related specifically to baptism. We have already seen this in the phrase
about the baptism of the Lord Jesus in John 3:26. That clearly relates to
Old Testament purification. In Numbers 8:7, you remember in those
Levitical purifications, the immersion comes when the priest dips his
hand into the water. But, the actual act of purification involves the
sprinkling or the throwing of the water on the subject which is to be
purified. So the major act is the effusion in the ritual. If the priest just
dips his hand in the water, then the ritual cleansing does not occur. He
has to apply it to the subject. So there is evidence in the New Testament
for the practice of effusion. And, in John 2:6, there those six stone water
pots we have already mentioned were used for Jewish purification. Each
of them contained about thirty gallons each, and again, that would not
have been enough for immersion, to say the least for the wedding guests
and of course, that is not how the ritual purification was performed. So
there is evidence in the New Testament of the practice of effusion. And
of course the most significant of that evidence, for those in the Reformed
tradition, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is the fundamental
reason why we pour rather than immerse, because we see baptism as a
sign of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual union with Christ
and the Spirit is always pictured in the New Testament as being poured
out onto and into God’s people, not God’s people being immersed into the
Spirit, but rather the Spirit being poured out into them or onto them.

Thirdly in response to the Baptist argument, the Reformed paedobaptist

points out that the symbolism or significance of baptism confirms
effusion. I have already hinted at that in the words I just spoke. Water
baptism signifies the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now, that is not only
seen in the book of Acts chapters 1 and 2, it is also seen in Jesus’
baptism. What happened on the occasion of Jesus’ baptism? Both
Matthew and Luke tell us that the Spirit in the visible form of a dove
descended upon Christ so that the picture of the spirit being dispensed
from heaven is present there, not only in Acts chapter 1 and 2, but in
Matthew 3:11, and in Luke 3:16. And of course, the distinction between
John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism is set forth in the Gospel. John
baptizes with water but Jesus will baptize with what? With fire and with
the Spirit. And of course, that comes to place. That is actualized in Acts
chapter 1 verses 4 and 5 and also in Acts chapter 11 verses 15 and 16. So
baptism fundamentally signifies the work of the Spirit not our faith, not
our decision, not our loyalty, not our obedience, but the work of the
Spirit.

Finally, with regard to the testimony of church history. Both Reformed

Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists agree on this point. Church history
should not be determinative. Church history doesn’t determine what we
do; Scripture does. But, church history can help us understand how the
early church and their successors understood the Scripture. And the fact
of the matter is, in church history, there is evidence of immersion and of
effusion as far back as we can go. Both forms of baptism were used in the
earliest days of the church, post New Testament as far as we can tell.
Scripture demonstrates the pattern of effusion from our perspective, from
a Presbyterian perspective, as the way baptism is to be performed and
Christian history does not contradict that. In other words, there is no
evidence in the early church of the prescription of effusion as the form of
baptism. In fact, it is not until the sixteenth century that someone argues
that immersion is the only biblical way of baptism. It is not until the
sixteenth century that someone argues that immersion is the only lawful
mode of baptism. The original Anabaptists of the Reformation, in fact,
practiced effusion. It was only the English Baptists, the general English
Baptists in the 1640’s who widely popularized immersion, and it was only
in their second Confession of Faith that they specified immersion as the
proper or only form of baptism.

Now, let me just address a few practical things. I realize that mode is not
the most important thing here. I recognize that for Baptists the whole
issue of recipients is more important. For example, I once sat next to Al
Martin and had a discussion with him about baptism and Al was ready to
say, “Look, mode is not the thing. What I am upset with you about
Duncan, is that you baptize babies. That is what I am upset about.” So he
was ready to make peace in the church over the issue of mode. It was
those babies that he was concerned about. So I recognize that. But mode
is significant and it is significant at a pastoral level at the local level,
because this is something, especially for lay folk, that causes considerable
consternation within families. I have a friend right now who is in the
process of moving from a Baptist church to a Presbyterian church, and
boy, her pastor is giving her up one side down and one side down the
other, not only on doctrinal issues, but on issues like baptism. And that is
not uncommon, so there are practical issues involved with this whole
debate over mode.

You understand that the reason why orthodox Baptists, whether they be
Southern Baptists, or Reformed Baptists, or whatever else, will not
recognize other modes of baptism as legitimate is because they believe
that mode is of the essence of baptism. Whereas for paedobaptists, and
that is everybody else, we do not believe that mode is of the essence of
baptism. So if you come to First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, and you
were baptized by immersion, or believer’s profession when you were
fifteen years old, no one is going to ask you to rebaptized or to be
rebaptized, because we acknowledge that as legitimate baptism. So there
is a difference there between the two traditions. One of the traditions
says, “Mode is of the essence of baptism.” The other says, “Mode is not
the essence of baptism.” We argue for a preference for that mode. We
have biblical reasons for why we prefer a particular mode, but we do not
deny the legitimacy of the other mode.

Question: Why would you ask somebody to be rebaptized?

Once again, in both the Reformed and in the Presbyterian tradition,
just to speak of those two traditions, we neither of us would ever ask
anyone to be rebaptized. Now there might be cases where a person had
received heretical baptism. Let me give you some examples. Maybe from
a “Jesus only” group, a Pentecostal group that does not baptize in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because and denies the
doctrine of the trinity. Or, perhaps someone who had received Mormon
baptism. And we would ask that person not to be rebaptized, but to be
baptized because we don’t recognize what they received as Christian
baptism, so the standard position for both the Reformed Baptist and the
Presbyterian standpoint is that if a person has received Christian
baptism, they are not asked to be rebaptized. So even our Reformed
Baptist friends, if they said to me, if I were coming to join their church,
“Ligon, you are going to have to be baptized,” and I said, “Oh, no, I have
been baptized before,” they would simply say, “No you have to be
rebaptized,” they would say, “because what you had before wasn’t
baptism.” That would be their response. And that is basically the
Presbyterian response to those who have received heretical forms of
baptism, whether it be from a cult that denies the doctrine of the trinity,
or doesn’t use the words of institution, so practically speaking, that would
be the only circumstance in which we ask a person to be baptized who
had been previously received something prior to that, that had been
called baptism.

Question: In my own family, my brother-in-law has recently become a

Christian and we had this discussion, I guess about a month ago, and I
have had it with several other people as well. So that is why I am seeing
this. One of my friends is from the north and so they have come from
Catholic families where they now recognize that neither their parents are
believers nor probably was the priest who administered baptism to
them. How do you respond to that?

Good question, and thank you for raising it. This question was raised last
century especially and you need to understand that even under Old
School Presbyterians there were two views. In the northern Presbyterian
church, Charles Hodge argued that all Roman Catholic baptism ought to
be accepted as legitimate Christian baptism. In the southern
Presbyterian church, James Henley Thornwell argued that it should not
be accepted as Christian baptism. And in the PCA, in order to avoid the
controversy, we have left that up to local sessions, so we split the
difference as usual. Basically what we said is, that we will leave that up to
the local session to determine on a case-by-case basis.

Now what was the rational? - because that is more important. It gets,
not only to this issue of what about parental belief, and so forth, but to
other issues of Ecclesiology. You need to understand that the view that
Roman baptism was illegitimate was tied to the Puritan view that the
Roman church was that it was not a church. That by the Declarations of
the Counsel of Trent, and the continued public proclamation of those
particular declarations which anathematized anyone who believed in
justification by grace through faith, that the Roman Church had in fact
excommunicated herself from the body of Christ by those declarations,
and therefore the Puritans did not recognize any of the rites of the Roman
Church. As the Puritans came to America, some Puritans continued to
hold that particular view, while other theologians held to different views.

However, there are only two views you can have on that: that it is either
baptism or not, and of the need to be rebaptized or not. So in the North,
Charles Hodge argued that the Roman Catholic church baptizes in the
name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so it ought to be
recognized as Christian baptism. But in the south, Thornwell argued, A.
the Roman Church wasn’t a church, and B. since the Roman Church was
not a church, therefore the Roman Priesthood was not ordained clergy.
And, in a very colorful debate at General Assembly with Hodge, he said,
“Mr. Hodge, you believe that any Tom, Dick, or Harry, can apply water in
the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and it is baptism.”
And he argued against that. So, those are the two views that have been
held in the Reformed tradition in America in the last hundred years,
mostly focusing on the issue of the status of the Roman Church rather
than the more particular question of were the parents true believers?
That question, I think, ought to be decided within Protestant boundaries
on the basis of professed belief or we really get ourselves into a mess. We
have recently had some converted Roman Catholics join at First Pres,
who strongly felt that on a theological basis that they had not received
Christian baptism and they wanted to receive baptism in the Presbyterian
church and on that basis, the session honored that particular request.

The Proper Recipients of Baptism

Now, the proper recipients of baptism. Reformed Baptists and
Reformed paedobaptists agree that baptism is sign and a seal of the
Covenant of Grace. Furthermore, we agree on the unity of the Covenant
of Grace. There is a single Covenant of Grace, from Old Covenant to New
Covenant, the Mediator is the same, the requirements are the same, and
the blessings are the same. And some Reformed Baptists even agree with
Reformed paedobaptists that baptism replaces circumcision. That
baptism is the New Covenant form of circumcision. David Kingdon in his
book, Children of Abraham, accepts this view. So they would argue
that to experience the circumcision of Christ, in the putting off of the
body of the flesh is the same thing as being buried with him and raised
with him in baptism through faith. They would argue, then, speaking
now of both Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists, that to
experience the circumcision of Christ, I am using Paul’s language here,
that to experience the circumcision of Christ in the putting off of the body
of the flesh, is the same as being buried with Him and being raised with
Him in baptism through faith. So they would acknowledge that both of
those were spiritual realities. The circumcision of Christ is a spiritual
reality, baptism into the death of Christ is a spiritual reality. If that is so,
the only conclusion that can be reached is that the two outward signs,
circumcision and baptism, symbolize the same inner realities about
which Paul speaks there in Colossians 2.

I think that many times, Reformed Baptists think that the Presbyterian
argument from Colossians 2 verse 8-15 is that Paul is speaking of external
water baptism and comparing it to external circumcision. And what they
normally do is they say, “No, no, no you have missed Paul’s point. Paul is
talking about spiritual circumcision being illustrated by water baptism.
And you guys think that he is correlating physical circumcision with
water baptism.” But the fact of the matter is, Paul is comparing spiritual
circumcision and spiritual baptism. And the reason he can do that is
because those two inner realities are correlated Old Covenant to New
Covenant, and their external realities under both covenants also
correlate. So Paul is speaking spiritually at that point consistently, but
the external signs are outward signs of those inward spiritual realities.
And that is clear, as we have said before in the Old Testament, even with
circumcision. Moses could say in Deuteronomy 10, circumcise your
hearts, not your foreskins. Moses knew that circumcision was more than
a mere external reality.

So, we can agree that far. But, but, Reformed Baptists differ from
Reformed paedobaptists on two crucial issues. Regarding the inclusion of
children in the covenant community under the New Covenant
manifestation of the Covenant of Grace, they believe in the unity of the
Covenant of Grace, old to new, but they would say in the New Covenant
there is a different constitution for the covenant community. The
covenant promises belong to the real covenant community, to those who
have been spiritually united to Christ, and to none other.

And in conjunction to that view, Reformed Baptists in their doctrine of

the church, based on their understanding of Jeremiah 31 argue that
Jeremiah 31 indicates that in all the covenant community, there will be
experiential knowledge of God. And that requires a “believers-only”
church. So when they define the church, they define it as those who have
professed faith in Jesus Christ, as opposed to the historic Reformed
paedobaptist position that views the church as made up of professing
believers and their covenant children. So it is those two points which
constitute the difference between Reformed Baptists and Reformed
paedobaptists on the issue of who are the appropriate recipients of
baptism.

And we argued the last time as follows: baptism is a sign and seal of the
Covenant of Grace; that is made clear in Romans 6 and in Galatians 3.
Children are included with their parents as part of the Covenant of Grace
in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and we saw this in the
formula of Genesis 17 and Acts 2. The New Covenant Promises are
extended to believers and their children in Acts 2:39 and therefore the
sign of the covenant, especially the sign of covenant initiation belongs to
professing believers and their covenant children. Because the Covenant
of Grace of which we are members today, is the same Covenant that God
instituted with Abraham and because baptism has now replaced
circumcision, as the sign of initiation into that Covenant of Grace. Any
questions so far?

Question: At what age do covenant children joint the church?

Well, you are going to have to use sanctified common sense in that
particular setting, but here at First Presbyterian, that question is solved
for us because the session has set a minimal age of discernment with
regard to church membership: age twelve. And so that helps you a little
bit. Say you have a family coming with a one year old child, a three year
old child, and a nine year old child. And the nine year old child, and this
has happened several times since I have been there, the nine year old
child made a profession of faith at a local Baptist church when she was
five, or hasn’t made a profession of faith publicly, but has told her
mommy and daddy that she believes in Jesus, so should she receive
believer’s baptism and or should she receive covenant baptism? We have
handled that uniformly with covenant baptism. And simply on the
household principle. But we slightly misname it when we say infant
baptism. The real meaning behind the right is covenant baptism. The
child is under the authority of the householder and as long as that
obtains, then you have a biblical principle. I do think that you can have
situations where an older child is indifferent and even antagonistic
towards the faith in the household, and at that point, I think you have got
to have discussion, not just with regard to the ritual of baptism, but with
lots of other things too. That is just part of the reality of covenant family
life in a fallen world.

Question: How does our view of baptism effect our view or the
Reformed Baptism view of the Lord’s Table?
That is something that has only recently changed in Baptist circles.
Closed communion would have been the norm amongst Baptists and that
again, is another reason why in the Presbyterian tradition we have tended
not to practice closed communion. Even if closed communion is
practiced, where non members are examined in some way or questions
prior, they wouldn’t have a totally closed communion because of the view
of the connection with believers and the requirement of covenant
fellowship with the Lord. Yes, all of these are just examples of how your
doctrine of church impacts this particular issue. So it is just a good
reminder to all of us that we need to spend more time working ourselves
in the area of doctrine of the church, because most of our upbringing, no
matter how good, how profoundly biblical the preaching was in our local
churches, I will bet you that we had an under representation of preaching
on the subject of the church in the context of that preaching. It has just
been ignored. Thank you for your patience today. Lord bless you.

 The Covenant of Grace with Abraham,
Fulfilled
Dr. Derek Thomas: Let every creature in heaven and earth and under
the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them say, “To Him who sits
upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and
might, forever and ever.” Let us worship God.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,
our God, Lord Jesus Christ: we worship You. We worship You in all the
glory and majesty of who You are and who You have revealed and
disclosed Yourself to be. We mingle our praises at the outset of our
worship with the voices of angels and archangels, and cherubim and
seraphim, and the church triumphant on the other side.

We thank You for the gospel. We thank You for the sweet assurance that
in Christ alone there is forgiveness of all of our sins. We thank You, O
Lord, for justification. We thank You for adoption into the household
and family of God. We thank You for the certainty that we shall be with
You for all eternity. We thank You this morning that we enter into an
aspect of that even as we worship You this morning, mingling our voices
with the church on the other side.

We are pilgrims passing through this world. Come down, O Lord, and
mingle among us, walk among us, by Your Spirit. Minister to us. May
Your word come home to us this morning–the word sung, and the word
preached, and the word prayed, and the word made visible in the
sacrament of baptism. We thank You, O gracious God, that You called us
into fellowship with Yourself. Now bless us, we pray. We ask it all in
Jesus' name. Amen.

Dr. Duncan: …with me to Luke, chapter one. We’ll begin in verse 67

today as we begin to make our way through the Gospel of Luke. Last
Lord's Day, as we were looking at the response to this remarkable scene
at the circumcision of John, we ended with the question that was being
asked by all those who were gathered and living around, and those who
were in the hill country of Judea. The question that they were asking
about John, this boy who had been born into the family of Zechariah and
Elizabeth, who we will one day know as John the Baptist, and they ask of
him in verse 66, ‘What then will this child turn out to be?’ And in large
measure that question is going to be answered in the song, the prophecy,
the prayer of praise of Zechariah in verses 68-79. In fact, let me walk
you through that passage so that you see something of what
Zechariah does.

In verses 68-71, he explains how the birth of John the Baptist, his son,
relates to the larger purposes of God's redemption. Then in verses 72-75,
he shows how the birth of John (and even more importantly, the birth of
the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom John would point) fulfills God's promises
made to Abraham in the covenant of grace. And then in verses 76-79, he
gets around to specifically answering the questions that had been asked
by those gathered at the circumcision and by those in the hill country of
Judea, ‘What then will this child turn out to be?’ He says this child will
turn out to be a prophet of the Most High who will prepare the way of the
Lord, and even describes what will be the heart, the core, of John's
message in his life and ministry. And so he gives those answers in this
song.

Now we said that in the first two chapters of Luke there are five songs,
and this is one of those songs. We've seen Elizabeth and Mary's songs,
and now we come to Zechariah's song when his mouth is opened and his
heart pours forth blessing and praise to God. This is the content of the
blessing which he pours forth.

Now of course, in the context of what Luke is doing in Luke 1 and 2,

everything is leading up to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything's
pointing to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, but along the way, even as
Luke's central focus is to focus us on Jesus Christ — who He is, what He's
come to do — he also teaches us much about living the Christian life, and
so we’ll learn both of those things as we study this passage together today.

Now let's pray before we read God's word.

Heavenly Father, thank You for the Scriptures. Thank You that You have
given them to us to equip us for every good work. Thank You that You
have made them profitable for reproof and correction, and for
instruction in righteousness. Thank You that in them You reveal the way
of salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ. Thank You, O Lord,
that Your Scripture is not a dead word, but living and active and
sharper than any two-edged sword, and that it pierces into the very
deepest parts of our souls. We ask then that by Your Holy Spirit You
would open our eyes to see what the word really is and what it says;
that you would open our ears to hear and to accept it; and that You
would open our hearts to believe and obey it. We pray this in Jesus'
name. Amen.

Hear God's word, beginning in Luke 1:67:

“And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and
prophesied, saying,

‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,

for He has visited and redeemed His people

and has raised up a horn of salvation for us

in the house of His servant David,

as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old,

that we should be saved from our enemies

and from the hand of all who hate us;

to show the mercy promised to our fathers

and to remember His holy covenant,

the oath that He swore to our father

Abraham, to grant us that we,

being delivered from the hand of our enemies,

might serve Him without fear,

in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.

And you, child, will be called the

prophet of the Most High;

for you will go before the Lord to

prepare His ways,

to give knowledge of salvation to His people

in the forgiveness of their sins,

because of the tender mercy of our God,

whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high

to give light to those who sit in darkness

and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the way of peace.’

“And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the
wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel.”

Amen. And thus ends this reading of God's holy, inspired, and inerrant
word. May He write its eternal truth upon all our hearts.

We have asked the question both of Mary's response and song

and Elizabeth's response and song…we have asked ourselves
the question, were we in their shoes, what would we say had
such an announcement been made to us…had God done such a
thing for us? And we ask that same question of ourselves
pertaining to Zechariah. Were we in Zechariah's shoes, what would
we say had the announcement been given to us that our child, our son,
had been chosen in the providence of God to be the Elijah that would go
before the Messiah, to be the one who would prepare His people for the
coming of the long awaited one? What would we say? How would we
publicly respond to that blessing?

Well, we saw last week that when Zechariah's mouth was finally opened
that the first thing that came out of his mouth was praise to God. He
blessed God with his tongue. For nine long months he had been silent, he
had been mute, he had been dumb, he had been unable to speak. And
finally his tongue is loosed, and what does he do? He praises God. Well,
Luke tells you what the content of that praise was, and it's pretty
extraordinary. One of the things that strikes me is that had I been told
that my son was going to be the greatest man that had ever been born of
women, save the Messiah, and had I been told that my son was going to
be the greatest prophet of the Old Testament, I would have gone on a
book tour! There would have been TV interviews, and I would have been
telling them how I did it all, and it would have all been about him and me.
And one of the things that strikes you as you read this story is that just
like we saw Elizabeth's humility reflect itself in John, so also we see the
humility of Zechariah reflect itself in John. The first thing that Zechariah
wants to talk about is the Lord's salvation. The second thing that he wants
to talk about in this song is about how what God is doing is fulfilling a
2,000 year old promise. Then and only then does he get to the third thing
that he wants to talk about, and that is what the role of his son is going to
be. And when he describes the role of his son, it's all about pointing to
Jesus. Just as Elizabeth had pointed to the Savior in her response to
Mary, so Zechariah describes his son's ministry as pointing to the Savior.
So let's walk through the three glorious parts of The Benedictus, of the
song of blessing sung by Zechariah, and see what we can learn about our
God and about our Savior, and about our salvation, and about the way
that we are to walk in daily life.

I. Praise to God for fulfilling His promise to redeem His people.

The first thing I want you to see is this. Zechariah makes it very
clear that John the Baptist's, his son's, life and work and
ministry and message is going to be set in the context of the
unfolding plan of redemption which the Lord himself is
accomplishing.

The first thing that comes out of his mouth (look at verses 68-71) is this:
“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.” It's all about God. See the God-
centeredness of this song:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,

For He has visited and redeemed His people

And has raised up a horn of salvation for us

In the house of His servant David.”

In other words, Zechariah is saying to all of those people who were

saying, ‘What is this child going to turn out to be? What…? Surely this
child has a special role in life. Surely this boy is a very, very unique boy,
and he's going to do great things.’ The first thing that Zechariah wants
them to know is that it is God who is doing great things. It's God who has
visited His people. It's God who is accomplishing their redemption. It's all
about God. Yes, his son will be a faithful servant of the Lord. Yes, his son
will be used mightily by the Lord to turn the fathers’ hearts back to their
children, and to cause the people of God to repent and have their hearts
prepared for the coming of the Messiah. But the first thing that Zechariah
wants all of us to see is that John is just a part of, he's a piece of, a larger
thing that's going on; and that larger thing that is going on is that God is
preparing to visit His people in the person of His own Son, the Messiah,
and He's going to accomplish redemption for His people. In other words,
Zechariah wants some perspective put on John's uniqueness. Yes, he's
unique. Yes, he's called of the Lord. Yes, he's going to be a prophet of the
Lord. But he's only a part of something bigger.

Now it strikes me that there's something for us to learn in the

Christian life from that. I understand that John's unique and that the
role that he has in redemptive history is unique. Jesus didn't say that
never had a greater been born of women about but one person — about
John. I understand that he's unique. But it seems to me that there's
something, there's a point of contact between you and me by which we
can learn from what Zechariah does in this prophecy. He says that we
have to understand John in the context of something bigger: God's
redeeming work, God's plan of salvation. Isn't that true for all of us, that
we need to understand our persons, our lives, our work, our ministry, our
mission in life, the reason that we're on the planet earth…we need to
understand that in light of something bigger than just ourselves, bigger
than just our talents and bigger than just our desires in the things that we
want to accomplish in life? There is something much bigger than that,
and it is God's purposes. And even as he begins this song with a God-
centeredness that points us away from John and to God, and to what God
is doing, so also that's the very context in which all of us must live,
realizing that our lives are about something bigger than just ourselves,
and bigger than just our families. Our lives are about the kingdom of God
displayed in all the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we are to bear
witness to Him in all that we say and do. That's why Jesus can say that if
you’re not ready to leave your father and mother and your sister and
brother and to follow Me, you’re not worthy of Me, because Jesus is
bigger than those things. Even as He wants us to care deeply about our
families and to love them as He has loved us, so also He wants us to value
His kingdom and His person more than anything else. There's a God-
centeredness about Zechariah's song here that teaches us the kind of
God-centered lives that we're to live.

II. The Messiah's coming is the fulfillment of prophecy given to

Abraham.

But there's a second thing as well that I want you to see, and you see it in
verses 72-75. The second thing that Zechariah wants us to understand is
this. Before we get to knowing what this boy is going to do and what God
is going to accomplish through him, Zechariah wants you to understand
that God is filling a two-millennia-old promise before the very
eyes of those who have seen the circumcision of John the
Baptist, and who will eventually see the birth of the Lord Jesus
Christ and His life and ministry, and that two-millennia-old
promise is God's promise to Abraham.

Look at the words of verses 72-75. As Zechariah explains God's plan of

redemption, he says, ‘What is God doing? He's saving us from our
enemies (verse 71) “…to show (verse 72) the mercy promised to our
fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath that He swore to
our father Abraham….”

Do you see what Zechariah is saying? He's saying that in the complex of
events surrounding the coming of the Messiah into the world (which will
of course culminate in the Messiah's death and burial and resurrection
and ascension) we are seeing the fulfillment of God's promise to
Abraham.

Now turn in your Bibles to Genesis 12. And you will remember that in
Genesis 12:2, God promised to Abraham that He would bless him, that
He would curse those who curse him, and that He would make him a
blessing to all the families of the earth. (Genesis 12:2.) And then He
reiterated this promise in Genesis 15:1, didn't He? Turn forward a couple
of pages to Genesis 15:1. “Do not fear, Abram,” He said. “I am your shield
and your reward will be very great.” And He reiterated in Genesis 15 His
promise to make Abram a multitude of nations and to be a God to him
and to his seed after him, and to give him a land of his own.

And then turn forward two more chapters to Genesis 17, and He
reassured Abram of this promise, changing his name to emphasize it–
from Abram to Abraham–and telling him that he would make a covenant
with him and his descendents after him, and that He would be his God,
and Abram and his descendents would be His people, and that He would
fulfill His promises to him.

Well, turn forward to Luke 1. Luke, in recording this song of Zechariah, is

telling you in Luke 1:72, 73 that the coming of Jesus the Messiah into this
world (and of course the coming of John, pointing to that coming of Jesus
as Messiah into this world)…that the coming of Jesus as Messiah in this
world was in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham: that Jesus fulfilled
the covenant of grace that God had made with Abraham.

Now here's a good Sunday afternoon exercise. Go home this afternoon

and look through your New Testament and see how often the writers of
the New Testament relate the person and work of Jesus Christ and the
gospel to the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham.
It happens a bunch of times, but Luke is the Gospel writer who gets to
that theme perhaps the earliest of any of them, at least in this kind of
explicitness and detail. He points to this promise which in the time that it
was made was almost 2,000 years old. Now it's almost 4,000 years old. It
was sometime around the twentieth century before Christ, in the first
part of the end of the third millennium and at the very beginning of the
second millennium that God made this promise to Abraham. And here we
are 4,000 years later, and we ourselves…the fact that this is a
predominantly Gentile congregation, we ourselves are living proof that
the promise of Abraham has come not only to the Jewish people who
believe in Jesus Christ, but even to Gentiles like us who believe in the
Lord Jesus Christ. We are recipients of the promises that God has made
to Abraham, and Luke is telling you through the mouth of Zechariah that
Jesus the Messiah in His person and in His work has brought about the
fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham.

In other words, Zechariah wants everyone to understand that there is

something big going on here. As glorious as is the unique role that his son
will play, God is about His work of redemption, and He's fulfilling a
promise that is twenty centuries old by bringing first the forerunner of
the Messiah and then the Messiah himself into this world.

III. The prophecy concerning John — his ministry.

Third, if you look at verses 76 and following, Zechariah gets around to

answering specifically the question, ‘What is this child going to be?
What role does God have for him?’ And here's how Zechariah
answers it: He “…will be called the prophet of the Most High; and [he]
will go before the Lord to prepare His ways.”

Now, Zechariah was already an old man when John was born, and I don't
know how long he lived. It is entirely possible that Zechariah did not have
the opportunity to sit his son down and train him in these things by the
time his son had reached adulthood. It's entirely possible that John lost
his father and his mother at very early years. I don't know; nobody does.
But I do know this. When I read Luke 1:76-79, I am amazed at how the
prophecy of Zechariah given when his son was eight days old charts for us
precisely the content of his life and preaching ministry. Look at what he
says: “He will be called the prophet of the Most High, [who] will go before
the Lord to prepare His ways….” So he will have the responsibility of
preparing Israel for the coming of the Lord…His coming in judgment and
His coming in grace. And that means that John is going to have the
responsibility of calling Israel to repentance, because Israel had strayed
from her Lord and God. And John is going to have the responsibility of
warning Israel against God's just judgment as he prepares the way of the
Lord.

But then look at what else he says — verse 77: “…To give knowledge of
salvation to His people in the forgiveness of their sins….” John's not just
going to preach repentance, and he's not just going to preach judgment,
he's also going to preach forgiveness of sins and the salvation that we
have because of forgiveness of sins.

And then, finally, if you look at verses 78ff, “…because of the tender
mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high….”

In other words, John's preaching of sin and repentance and of

forgiveness is going to be rooted in an understanding of God's grace and
in the gospel of grace and of salvation.

Notice those three things. There's going to be a message of

repentance in preparation; there's going to be a message of
forgiveness of sins; and, there's going to be a message of God's
grace and tender mercy to His people. And when you look through
the pages of the New Testament at their description of John's ministry,
years later…more than twenty years, more than perhaps 25 years later
after these words had been spoken, you find that Zechariah's prophecy is
fulfilled perfectly.

Turn forward in your Bibles to Luke 3, and look at verse 4. This is how
Luke describes John:

He came preaching, and fulfilled what was “written in the book of the
words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. Every ravine
shall be filled up, every mountain and hill shall be brought low, the
crooked will become straight, the rough, smooth, and all flesh shall see
the salvation of God.’’”

And notice his words of judgment against the leaders of Israel (verse 7):
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”
So there is strong preaching against sin, there is a strong call to
repentance, and there is a preparing of the way of the Lord, just as his
father had prophesied.

But there is also a beautiful promise of the forgiveness of sins

that God holds out in Jesus Christ. Look back at verse 3 of Luke
3. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
And it's even better than that. You remember how John puts it? In the
Gospel of John, when Jesus comes out into the wilderness where John is
ministering, what does John say? “Behold! The Lamb of God who comes
to take away the sins of the world.” So John not only preached God's
impending and just judgment and the necessity of repentance, he pointed
people to the forgiveness of sins that came only through Jesus Christ, and
he understood that behind all of this were God's promises of mercy. Why?
Well, because somewhere along the line he learned the truth which his
father Zechariah unfolded for us in Luke 1:68-79.

Now I want to pause and think with you for a second about
John's preaching, because John's preaching has often been
characterized as hard preaching — preaching that crushed
sinners, challenged sin, demanded repentance, demanded
response.

I was with John MacArthur a couple of years ago, and he was talking
about some of the principles that have guided his own preaching, and one
of the things that he shared with us was this. He said, “It is my conviction
that soft preaching makes hard hearts.” Soft preaching makes hard
hearts. Now what he meant by that was preaching that refused to take
seriously our sin and to address us in our sinfulness and in our need of
repentance, and in our need for grace. So much of the preaching of our
own time is characterized by that.
So often we hear preachers say, “I don't want to talk about sin.” And, my
friends, I understand that. I don't want to talk about it either! I'd rather
talk about something else, but soft preaching makes hard hearts. And
John's ministry is a glorious example of how faithful preaching
makes soft hearts, because faithful preaching brings us face to
face with our own sin and our own need for grace and
forgiveness, and the provision of that grace and forgiveness in
Jesus Christ alone and in the gospel as we trust in Him. And it
makes soft hearts…those who know their own sin and who know God's
grace to them are far more ready to forgive others who have sinned
against them than those who have heard soft preaching which never
addresses the hard reality of what sin can do to us and to others and to
what it does to our relationship with God.

We should want faithful preaching that makes our heart soft under the
gospel, because in the end the only kind of preaching that will enable us
to magnify the grace of God is the kind of preaching that is willing to
address the hard issues of our own hearts. It's us. We’re the problem. It's
the sin in our heart that needs to be dealt with. And until you've been
brought face to face with that in preaching, you’re very ready to find the
speck in others’ eyes because you can't see the log in your own. And that's
why John's ministry is such a blessing to us, because he refuses to let us
get away without seeing the log in our own eye, so that, having it
removed, we can then look to the grace of the Savior and find forgiveness
of sins.

Let's pray.

Heavenly Father, Your grace is marvelous, but we can't see that until we
see our own sin. Help us then, having seen our sin, to bless God even as
Zechariah did, for the marvelous grace of our loving Lord. We pray this
in Jesus' name. Amen.

The Call of God

The Promises of God (The Life of Abraham) — 1. The Call of God

If you would look with me at God's word in Genesis, chapter 12. We’re
going to attend tonight to verses 1 through 9. We, of course, are beginning
the life of Abraham at this juncture. We have seen the preface to this
great book set forth in the first eleven chapters, and specifically from
chapter 11, verse 27, which begins the book of Terah of which this part of
the book of Genesis is a constituent. The book of Terah beginning in
Genesis, chapter 11, verse 27, begins to tell us the main characters in the
story of Abraham. And the passage we're going to study tonight is going
to continue to fill out for us. It's almost like a listing of the great
characters in a Shakespearean play written on the front page of one of
those Riverside Editions of the works of Shakespeare so that you know
who is who and what roles they are going to play in this great drama of
redemption. And we continue to see that in the passage before us, but we
also see the very heart of the covenant promises give to Abraham.
Lawrence Richards says this: "Abraham stands as the greatest figure to be
found in the ancient world. Three world religions, Islam, Judaism and
Christianity, revere him as the father of their faiths. But what makes
Abraham important to the Bible student is not the reverence in which he
is held. It is not even the belief that the The National Geographic once
expressed that ‘Abraham, the patriarch, conceived of a great and simple
idea, the idea of a single Almighty God. (You’ll find that in National
Geographic in December of 1966, page 740, if you’re looking.) Abraham's
importance is not even found in the fact that he is today a prime model of
saving faith. No, the importance of Abraham in Genesis is that through
Abraham God reveals His purpose and goal for the universe. In promises
to Abram, God revealed that he had a plan."

If the first chapters of Genesis show that this magnificent universe in

which we are set as a very small part is, in fact, not an impersonal
universe, but a personal universe created by a personal God who is in
covenant relationship with us through Adam, then the story of Abraham
which begins to be set forth here shows that that universe is not only
personal, it is purposive in the sense of God working out the history of
redemption for the sake of His people as we are drawn into fellowship
with Him. So, let's turn our attention to God's word here in Genesis 12.
This is the word of God:

Genesis 12:1-9

Our Heavenly Father, we thank You for the truth of Your word. We
acknowledge the power, the might of the promises contained in this
passage as we begin to study. We pray, O Lord, that You would open
our hearts, that we might attend to the details of the truth of Your word.
But more than simply a study of this passage, we seek to yield our
hearts to You, and so walk with the faith of Abraham in this world,
trusting in the promises of the covenant of grace, trusting in the
mediator of the covenant of grace. Help us then to see this truth with the
eyes of the new covenant and with the hope of eternal glory set before
us. We ask it in Jesus' name, Amen.

It has been well said that Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3 is the center
point of the promises of the covenant of grace in the history of
redemption. Everything before Genesis 12, 1 through 3, is leading up to it.
Everything after Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3 in the Bible is fulfilling it.
We have here an epitome of the promises of the covenant of grace. The
covenant of grace will indeed be spelled out in greater detail, but the
covenant of grace is set forth in seed form right here in these verses. The
great theme of these chapters focusing on the life of Abraham will be the
promised seed or posterity which is given to him by the Lord. And to the
lesser extent the promised land to which the little group clings
tenaciously and in the final chapter to which they look back on in
certainty of return. There is much that we could study in this passage,
and so let's focus ourselves on three or four things.

The first one is the covenant of grace itself. I'd like you to look at verses 1
through 3. Let's remember the chronology of this story. Abraham, we are
told, was 75 years old when he entered Canaan. We are told that in verse
4. In Genesis, chapter 16, verse 15, we are told that he was 86 at the birth
of Ishmael. In Genesis, chapter 17, verses 1 and 24 we surmise that he was
99 when the covenant sign of circumcision was given. And so, a year later
in Genesis 21, verse 2, he was 100 when he his son Isaac was finally born.
He was at least 115 and perhaps 125 when he was commanded by the
Lord to take his son, his only son whom he loved, Isaac, and sacrifice him
in the land of Moriah. He was 137 when Sara died. He was 140 when
Isaac was married, and he was 175 when he died. This passage of
Scripture, this section of Scripture which we are launching into a study of,
covers certain events in the great long life of Abraham. Now of course by
definition Moses has to be specific and episodic as he reveals this life.
This was a very full life. And this is not really a biography of Abraham.
Specific events are chosen under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by
Moses to set forth for us not only the promises of God, but to give us
instruction for the living of our own lives. So as we look at this passage,
we will have many things that pop into our minds that we might ask. But
what about this? Well, what happened here? What about this, is there an
answer to that? You’re going to have to line up before the Lord in glory to
come and ask Him those questions because Moses doesn't tell you all
those answers. But he tells a glorious story of God's covenant promises.
And I'd like to start off by looking at that covenant of grace which God
has made with Abram.

Now let's remember a couple of things. First, God has already spoken to
Abram, telling him to leave Ur of the Chaldees. When God's word comes
to him here in Genesis 12, it comes to him in Haran. Now by the way, just
to be confusing you will have noticed in this passage that in Genesis 11,
verse 27 there is a brother of Abram, named Haran, and there is this city
that they are now in Genesis named Haran. The two words are really not
the same in Hebrew. They are unrelated. But one thing I do want to point
out to you if you’ll look at verse 26. Verse 26 of Genesis 11 tells us that
Abram had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. Now Abram is listed first
there and you might think that that meant that he was the first born. But
apparently Abram was the youngest of those three brothers. And the
reason he is listed first is not for the last time in the book of Genesis, God
has chosen the younger to be the line of promise. And so once again we
see here the election of grace where God takes initiative and reaches out
and takes one that through the law of primogeniture one might not expect
to be the line of blessing and makes him, in fact, his choice servant for the
work of the Lord.

I. All our happiness is tied up and produced by God's covenant

grace.
Now as we look at Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3, and God's promises and
God's requirements in the covenant of grace. One thing comes through
loud and clear, and that is that all of our happiness is tied up with and
produced by God's covenant grace. So often in life Satan attempts to
tempt us to believe that walking in the way of God spoils all our fun, and
that fulfillment and satisfaction and contentment and life are found only
when we deviate from the way of God. But it is crystal clear as you read
these promises that happiness and contentment and satisfaction and
fulfillment are by-products of dying to ourselves, trusting in Christ and
resting in the promises that God has given in the covenant of grace. And
that message is just as important for us today as it was to Abram.

Let's look at this passage very briefly. Here in Genesis 12, verses 1
through 3, I want you to see two things. First of all the commands of the
covenant of grace, and second of all, the promises of the covenant of
grace. We have already talked about covenants and especially in Genesis,
chapter 2, where we see the outline of the covenant of works given, and in
Genesis chapter 6 when we saw the covenant of Noah. But here in
Genesis 12, we see a clearer presentation of God's redeeming covenant
than we saw in the life of Noah. But here again we also see that important
reality that the covenant is always mutual. There is no such thing as a
covenant without mutuality. There may be promises that are made by
God and established by God in a gracious covenant, but there is always
mutual obligation in a covenant relationship. Remember we defined a
covenant using Palmer Robertson's definition. It's a bond in blood,
sovereignly administered. It is a relationship which is binding. It is a life
or death relationship. It is one which comes with mutual blessings and
mutual obligations. And so here in Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3, we see
commands even in the covenant of grace. Now I've stressed this because
sometimes people will single out the covenant that God makes here with
Abram and say this covenant was unconditional, whereas other covenants
in the book of Genesis were conditional. That is a false dichotomy,
because there are requirements for Abram here in the covenant of grace.
Look at the very first words. "Go forth from your country and from your
relatives and from your father's house to the land which I will show you."
Notice that the first words of the covenant of grace are commands,
conditions, or perhaps better, requirements. God gives these
requirements. And by the way, there is not only the requirement of verse
one, but if you look further down there is another requirement. If you
look at verse 2, the very last clause in verse 2 reads in most of our
translations something like this. So you shall be a blessing. Now that
looks like perhaps an indicative statement, or a statement of future
reality. But, in fact, it is an imperative. There are two imperatives in this
passage. Go forth and be a blessing. So those are the commands of the
covenant of grace. Abram is told by God to go forth from his country, his
relatives and from his father's house. And then he is told to be a blessing.
Those are the two commands of the covenant of grace.

I want you to note two things about this. First of all we have been
noticing, ever since Genesis 1, a gradual narrowing of God's focus in this
great book of Genesis. Starting off with the great universe, zeroing in on
the lines of the sons of Adam, zeroing in on the sons of the line of Noah,
zeroing in on the sons of Shem, zeroing in on Terah, one of the lines of
the sons of Shem, and now zeroing in on Abram. It's like a great funnel
and now the focus has been drawn down to the very point of the funnel.
But at the same time we have seen a separation going on in the first
eleven chapters of Genesis.

And isn't it interesting that the covenant of grace begins with the call of
God to Abram to separate himself. Now that call of separation does not
mean that Abram is to take himself out of the world, to have no affiliation
or association with anyone else in the world, to be utterly repulsed by the
world, to hate the world, to not have anything to do with it. Oh, no,
because what's the second part of this command? Be a blessing to the
nations. So on the one hand he must separate, on the other hand he must
be a blessing. Is that not what God calls us to? Is that not precisely what
Jesus was telling us when He called us to be salt and light? We must be
different from the world in order to be a blessing to the world. Abraham
must be separate from the nations in order to be a blessing to the nations.
And here God calls Abram to separate himself from his country, from his
relations and from his father's house in order that he might be a blessing
to all nations. There is so much truth packed into that command of the
covenant of grace. Listen to what Derek Kidner says: "The history of
redemption like that of creation begins with God speaking: this, in a
nutshell, differentiates Abram's story from his father's." Remember, his
father started out with him. Terah went as far as Haran, but Terah went
no further, and Abram went on. Why? Terah had not been called by God.
Abram had, and that makes all the difference in the world. God had
spoken to Abram. That's why Abram went. Terah, in all likelihood, went
because his son was going. He may have been aged and in need of his
son's care. But at any rate, the difference between Terah and Abraham is
in that call. Now Kidner goes on to say: "The call to forsake all and
follow." Heard that before? Studying the gospel of Matthew for a long
time. "The call to forsake all and follow finds its nearest parallels in the
Gospels. And Abram's early history is partly that of his gradual
disentanglement from country and kindred and father's house, a that is a
process not completed until Genesis, chapter 13." Okay.

So we see here emerging a pattern where Abram is having to separate

himself from the nations in order to be a blessing to the nations. And
that's a message to us, too. As Christians we must distinctively see
ourselves as different from the world. We must think differently from the
world. We must have a different world view and outlook from the world.
We must have a different set of priorities. We must have a different set of
goals. Our agenda is different from the agenda of the world. But we do
that not so we can stand over against the world and feel superior to the
world. Or despise the world in the sense of not having any concern for the
interests of men and women who are not part of the faith. We are
distinctive in order that we can be a blessing. In other words, we must say
no to the world in order that we can say yes to the world. We must be
different from the world and say no, your way of thinking is wrong.
Again, not so that we feel superior to the world, but so that we might be a
blessing to the world. For our agenda is not something that we have
cooked up. It's something that we have received from the call of God. It's
His agenda, it's His priority, it's His goal, it's His world view, it's His
focus and our desire is to see the world won to that. But we can't do that if
we're like the world. And so all of us are called to separation from the
world, and all of us are called to be blessings to the world. And isn't it
interesting that Christians have a hard time keeping those two things
together? They either do a real good job of separating themselves from
the thought life of the world so much that they despise the world in an
unbiblical sense of that phrase. Or they so long to draw the world to
Christ, and they decide that the best way to do that is to become like the
world that they lose their distinctive saltiness. But Jesus calls us to be salt
and light. He calls us to be distinct from the world in order to be a
blessing to the world. And that is the challenge of the Christian life. And
we see it laid forth right here in the story of Abram.

Now we've see the two commands: Go forth from your country and
separate and be a blessing. Now let's look at the promises of the covenant.
There are many different ways that we could enumerate these promises.
Many of them are legitimate. But let me just give you this particular
enumeration of the promises. I find here at least six promises in Genesis,
chapter 12, verses 1 through 7, zeroing in on verses 1 through 3 and then
skipping down to verse 7. I find at least six promises here given in the
covenant of grace to Abram. And these are expanded on in the rest of the
story of Abram, in the rest of the story of Genesis, in the story of Exodus
and throughout the Old Testament all the way up to the prophet
Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31.

The first promise is, of course, the promise to make Abram a great nation.
Abram's name, of course, meant exalted father. But this is a great irony
because Moses has gone out of his way already to tell us that Abram's
wife, Sarai, was barren. She had no child. You catch the redundancy? She
was barren. She had no child. Well, of course, if she's barren, she had no
child. The double emphasis there is emphatic. And God is saying, I will
make you a great nation. We see there the promise of the seed for
Abraham.

Then, I will bless you. The specifics of this blessing will be spelled out, but
Abraham is to be the object of special saving favor from the Lord, and he
is being singled out here as the line of promise. A line that we have
already seen developing in Genesis 1 through 11.

Thirdly, God says, "I will make your name great." Now we have already
commented on this, but let's look back just to remind ourselves. If you’ll
look back to Genesis, chapter 11, verse 4. Remember what the men of
Babel said. Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower whose top
will reach into heaven and let us make for ourselves a name. So the
agenda of the people of the plain of Shinar was to make for themselves a
name. And God brought them to nothing. God humbles the proud, but
God exalts the humble. And so what does he say to Abram? I will make
your name great.

The fourth promise. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who
curses you, I will curse. This is not unlike the promise that God had made
to Shem in the prophecy of Noah. And so we see a providential tear for
Abraham and the promised line here. Those who bless Abram, they may
expect to find blessing. Those who curse him, those who oppose him, God
will bring to naught with his curse.

The fifth blessing we see here in Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3, is that in
you all the families of the earth will be blessed. Here we see again the
focus of the nations in the promises that God has made to Abram.
Though this focus of the seed of Abraham's ministry to the nations will
almost drop off the charts in the Old Testament in some senses, it is at
the very heart of the covenant promises, and it is at the very heart of what
the New Testament notices about the ministry of the Messiah and His
disciples in the age in which we now live. Now the good news of God is to
go to the nations as promised all those years ago by God to Abram
himself. You will be a blessing to all the families of the earth.

And then finally, it is hinted at in verse 1, go forth from your country to

the land that I will show you. The hint there is, of course, that God is
going give Abram a land. But it is made explicit in verse 7, and this is the
sixth promise that we see in the covenant of grace, to your descendants I
will give this land. And so the promise of the land of Canaan is set forth
here to Abram. And these are the six great promises of the covenant of
grace which we will see explained and unfolded in the weeks to come.

II. The Covenant of Grace requires covenant loyalty

Now let me notice just two or three other things very quickly. If you will
look at verses 4 and 5 you will see here this separation to which we have
already alluded being worked out. The call of the covenant of grace is
always a call to separation. When we're called by God in His covenant of
grace to come after Him, it is a call to separation to put behind us our
worldly agenda, our worldly world view, our worldly way of thinking and
to adapt and to adopt what the Lord's plan is for us. A covenant of grace
requires covenant loyalty which says, God is my first priority. God is the
one who sets the agenda for my priorities and for my preferences, and
God is the one who by His word determines my decisions. This kind of
covenant loyalty is seen very clearly in the life of Abraham. Look at verse
4. "So Abram went forth as the Lord had spoken to him and Lot went
with him." Let me just make a mention here. Abram, of course, is going
forth from Haran at this point. They have already left Ur of the
Chaldeans, they have made their way to Haran. Abram is responding in
obedience to what God has called him to do. And now Abram leaves
behind his father and his brother. Because while they are in Ur, Haran,
his brother, dies. While they are in Haran, his father, Terah, dies. And so
notice how God is bringing about the separation which he called Abram
to. There seems to be no faulting Abram in the text. Abram is not
aggressive in separating himself from his family. And so God begins to
take his family out of the picture.

By the way, that's a hint at how God sometimes works in our own
experiences when He calls us to obedience and we're sluggish in it. He
speeds up the process through His direct divine providence. At any rate,
Abram apparently takes Lot along as his potential heir because as we've
already observed, Abram had no physical heir at this point. And so Lot,
his nephew, is taken along for this purpose. But at this point it is Abram,
Sarai, his wife, Lot, his nephew, and those that are now a part of the
household of Abram. They've separated themselves now from his father's
house. They've separated themselves from his father's country, and he's
almost separated himself from all his relations. And so we see this
process of separation unfolding.

III. The pilgrim declares the Lord's dominion in the shadow of

idols.

If you look at verses 6 and 7, again, we will see a glorious passage in God's
covenant of grace with Abram. By grace, in verses 6 and 7, this pilgrim,
Abraham, a stranger in a strange land, declares the Lord's dominion in
the shadow of idols. What in the world am I talking about? Look at this
passage. "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem."
Now the phrase "the site of Shechem" seems to indicate that there was a
Canaanite shrine there. The place was a term that was often used to
describe Canaanite shrines. Now God takes Abram right to Shechem, and
they get there and we read this. Verse 7: "The Lord appeared to Abram
and said ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’ And so he built an
altar thee to the Lord who had appeared to him."

Now this is a tremendously important site in the history of redemption.

You remember it was at Shechem that the people of God had to make the
choice between the mountain of curse and the mountain of blessing, Ebal
and Gerizim in Deuteronomy. It was at Shechem that Joshua gave his
final address to the people of God. And it was at Shechem that Solomon's
kingdom was divided. And here God brings Abram to Shechem in the
very shadow of this Canaanite shrine, and what does God do? He gives
his promise to give the land to Abram in the shadow of the Canaanite
shrine, and Abram builds an altar there in the face of the pagan
worldliness of his day. Abraham, the man of faith, sets up a place of
worship to the one true God. A defiant declaration that God's dominion
extends everywhere. He is the one true God.

IV. Responding to the Covenant of Grace means being a

pilgrim.

Then, look again at verses 8 and 9 because we see here the pilgrimage of
Abram. Responding to the covenant of grace always means being a
stranger in a strange land. It always means being a pilgrim, and there's a
hint at it here in verses 8 and 9. "Then he proceeded on from there to the
mountain on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent with Bethel on the
west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord and called
upon the name of the Lord." Now we already remember that phrase
"called upon the name of the Lord" from Genesis, chapter 4, verse 26. It's
a very important term that refers to corporate worship. In Genesis 4, it
was, of course, occurring in the line of promise. Corporate worship in the
days of Seth. Here Abram is calling upon the Lord in the midst of this
pagan land. But I want you to note two verbs that are mentioned here.
Notice what Abram did in verse 8. He pitched his tent. But before he
worships the Lord corporately, what does he do? He builds an altar. He
pitches his tent, he builds an altar. Abram's own living quarters are
impermanent. He lives like a Nomad. But he builds an altar to the Lord
which will stand forth as a testimony to the permanence of the promises
of God. We can see Abram's priority even there.

You know it was said that it was a custom of some of the early American
colonial settlers, many of them are Scotch Presbyterian descent, to first
build the house of worship in their little village, and then to set forth in
building their individual homes. Abram pitches his tent, but he builds an
altar to the Lord. You see to respond to the covenant of grace means to be
a pilgrim, in a strange land. And Abram understood that for all his faults.
And so over these next few weeks and these next few chapters, as we
study Abraham, we're going to see the promises that God made to him
about his seed, his posterity. We’re going to see the promises that God
made to him about the land, and we're going to see the promises that God
made to him regarding the nations. We’re going to see how those are
fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Mediator of the new covenant.
May the Lord bless His word. Let us pray.

Our Heavenly Father, we thank You for the thrilling truth of Your word,
and we ask that by Your grace you would give us the hearts of pilgrims,
that we would long for that city which has foundations, and that we
would not be satisfied with the trifles and the temporalities of this world.
For we ask these things in Jesus' name, Amen.

Famine in the Land

Genesis 12:10-20

The Promises of God (The Life of Abraham) - 2 Famine in the Land

Please turn with me to Genesis, chapter 12. We began our study of the life
of Abraham last week after a number of weeks looking at Genesis 1
through 11. As we looked at the life of Abram in Genesis 12, verses 1- 9,
we said that that section begins a very long section in the book of Genesis,
dealing with the life of this patriarch, running from Genesis 12 to about
Genesis 23. And then a number of chapters thereafter still pertain to
certain events in the life of Abram, though the focus then turns to Isaac
and to his other descendants. At any rate we said last week that many
have well said that Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3, is the center point in
the history of the biblical promises. Everything that leads up to Genesis
12, verses 1 through 3, is in preparation for it. Everything that comes after
Genesis 12, verses 1 through 3 in the Bible is in fulfillment of it. And so
this is a real center point for the promises of the covenant of grace.

We also noted that the great theme of these chapters is going to be the
promise seed to Abram. And then of course to Abraham as his name is
changed. So his posterity is at the very center of these chapters, as well as
to a lesser extent the theme of the promised land. This little group leaving
the Ur of the Chaldeans clings tenaciously to the promises of God that the
Lord will give a seed and the Lord will give a land. And the very final
chapter of this section looks back to the certainty of return to the land of
promise.

As we looked through Genesis 12, verses 1 through 9 last week, we saw

the outline of the covenant blessings given in verses 1 through 3. Then in
verses 4 and 5 we saw Abram begin to live out God's commands. You
remember we said that in the covenant of grace, God in His grace comes
and blesses Abram, though Abram does nothing to earn or deserve that.
Nevertheless, God places requirements on Abram, and the central
requirement that He places on Abram is to separate himself from his
land, his relations and from the headship of his father's house. And so
there is a requirement that Abram must fulfill in carrying out this mutual
relationship which is a covenant. So even in the covenant of grace, which
is established by God's grace, there are requirements for God's people
and this is seen in verses 4 and 5 as Abram begins to follow through on
the command of God to ‘go forth from your country to the land that I will
show you.’

Then if you look at verses 6 and 7, we see Abram pausing at the site of
Shechem to lift up praise to the Lord as he builds an altar there. And we
mentioned that it's very likely that that phrase the site of Shechem or the
place of Shechem indicates that there was a pagan altar there. This was a
pagan worship center. And so here is Abram coming into the middle of
the land of promise. Not a stitch of it is his at this moment. It's under
pagan control. The Canaanite is then in the land. This is the center of
their worship, their idolatrous worship. And what does he do? He builds
an altar to the one true God, the Lord, and he worships Him. He
proclaims the Lord's dominion over the nations, even when he is a
stranger in a strange land.

And then we saw again, as we looked to the very end of that section in
verses 8 and 9 that Abram, his faith was tested in his wanderings, and he
learned to live the life of a pilgrim. Though Abram pitched his tent, he
built an altar. And we said that really showed us Abram's priority. He
built a lasting altar to the Lord for worship, even though he, himself, was
dwelling in a tent. He recognized the priorities of life.

That sets the stage for this next scene which we enter here in Genesis,
chapter 12, verses 10 through 20. Let's attend to this passage. This is
God's word:

Genesis 12:10-20

Our Lord and our God, we ask that You would open our eyes to behold
wonderful things in Your words. We know that every word is given by
inspiration and every word is profitable. So help us, we pray, to learn
from this great historical narrative, this great event in the history of the
life of a faithful man, even this great failure is his faith. We pray, O
Lord, that we would learn both through warning and through
exhortation. And we ask, O God, that you would make us willing hearers
and doers of Your word. For Christ's sake we ask it, Amen.

I. The great themes of the Abrahamic Covenant are: the Seed,

the Land, the Nations.
I want to look with you at three or four things in this passage. In verse 10
we see the heading to this whole section in the words, "Now there was
famine in the land and so Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there for
the famine was severe in the land." In that passage we see God setting the
stage for a trial for Abram. Abram had already had to endure many trials
on obedience to God's call. He had, of course, had to leave his native
country. He had had to go to an unknown destination. He had to deal
with his wife's childlessness in the face of God's promise to make him a
great nation. He had to deal with the loss of his father. He had to deal
with coming into a land and not finding a permanent home, but living as
a nomad. He had to deal with being surrounded by idolaters on every
side. And now, there is a famine in the land.

The Lord is testing Abram's faith and faithfulness and this verse 10 is
setting the stage for the rest of the event as it enfolds in verses 11 through
20. So this verse sets the stage for a story which reveals the sinfulness of a
great man. Abraham, though he was a great man, was a sinner. So we see
the sinfulness of a great man set side by side with the grace of a great
God. But before we look at this passage as a whole, I think it will help us
to remember the themes that are set forth in the promise of God to
Abram in the blessing of verses 1 through 3. Because each of these three
themes have a role to play in this passage in explaining what exactly is
going on here. If you will remember, God promises to Abram blessings in
verses 1, 2 and 3, and I'd like you to look there with me very briefly.

We see there at least three main features to that blessing. There is the
promise of a seed, the promise of posterity. There is the promise of the
land, and there is the promise of the nations. And those promises
continue to be repeated throughout the story of Abram here in Genesis 12
through 23. Let me just give you a few examples. If you’ll keep your Bibles
open, I'd like you to turn to a few passages.

First of all, looking at Genesis 12, verse 2, let's see the promises about the
seed. "I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your
name great; and so you shall be a blessing." So He promises that he’ll be a
great nation. That promise has to do with the seed, with the posterity that
he will become a great nation. Then look at Genesis 13, verse 16. There
God again says, "I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth so
that if anyone can number the dust of the earth; then your descendants
can also be numbered." So again this theme of the posterity that God is
going to give to Abram is brought to our attention. Then again in Genesis
15, verse 5, we read: "He took him outside and said, ‘Now look toward the
heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ and He said to
him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’" Again a promise concerning the
seed. Turn over another chapter to Genesis 16, verse 10. There again:
"Moreover the angel of the Lord said to her, ‘I will greatly multiply your
descendants so that they will be too many to count.’" And then again in
Genesis 17, verse 2, we read: "I will establish My covenant between Me
and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly.’" So over and over in God's
dealings with Abram, He stresses the blessing of posterity. He is going to
give him descendants. He is going to give him not simply an heir, but
He's going to make him a father of a great nation, indeed a father of
nations.

Then if you’ll turn back to Genesis 12. Let's look at the second theme. This
is the theme of the land. In Genesis 12, verse 7, we read: "The Lord
appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’
So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him." Then
look over in Genesis 13, verse 15: "All the land which you see, I will give it
to you and to your descendants forever." Then look over two more verses,
Genesis 13:17: "Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth;
for I will give it to you." And then if you’d turn forward to Genesis 17,
verse 8: "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of
your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,
and I will be their God." So over and over, throughout God's dealings with
Abram in this section we see him repeating His promise of the blessing of
the land. Not only posterity, but the land.

Now let's go back to Genesis 12 again and look at the third thing. Genesis
12, verse 3, we read: "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who
curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be
blessed." What's the third theme? The nations. The posterity, the land
and the nations. God blesses Abram in his covenant promises and says
that he will be a blessing to the nations. Look again at this theme as it's
carried out. Turn forward, for instance, to Genesis 18, verses 17 and 18.
This is Abram and Sodom and Gomorrah have come to the Lord's
attention. And God is about to bring judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah
and listen to the counsel of the Lord. Genesis 18, verses 17 and 18: "Shall I
hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely
become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth
will be blessed?" And so there even as God is about to bring judgment
against Sodom and Gomorrah, he pauses to say, ‘You know, I need to tell
Abraham this because in him all the nations of the earth are going to be
blessed, and I'm getting ready to bring judgment against one of those
nations. He needs to be able to intercede.’ And then if we turn forward to
Genesis 22. In the wake of God providing a substitute in the sacrifice of
Isaac, we read this. Genesis 22, verse 18: "In your seed all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed because you have obeyed my voice." So over
and over the blessing that Abram is to be to the nations is mentioned as
the promises of the covenant are reiterated.

Now, isn't it interesting that it is in precisely the three areas of those

promises that Abram is tested. Precisely in the area of the promises of the
posterity, the land, and his blessing to the nations Abram is tested. Think
for a moment about the promise of the posterity. Abram's wife, Sarai,
goes to the age of 90 before she ever bears him a son. And do you realize
that Rebecca, his daughter-in-law, went 20 years before she bore a son
and Abram was still alive? Do you realize what that would have been like
for 160-year old Abram having gone through all the pain of waiting with
Sarai, now he's waiting for his son's wife to have a child. This man's faith
was tested over and over again with regard to the posterity. Think again
of the promise of the land. Not only is Abram sent from his home country
to a place where he doesn't know, you remember Hebrews tells us he
didn't where he was going when he started out. The Lord just said you go,
I’ll take you there. Not only does he go to a country that he doesn't know,
but he's a stranger there. And when his wife dies, he has to buy a parcel of
ground to bury his wife. He doesn't own a stitch of land at his wife's death
at the age of 127. Abram's faith is tested in the promises of the land. In
fact Hebrews 11 reminds us that Abram died without the promises of God
being fulfilled to him with regard to the land. Think again of this testing
with regard to the nation. Abram was to be a blessing to the nation, and
yet when Abram interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, judgment still fell
on them. Think of it. Abram was to be a blessing to his neighbors, but
first in this chapter, and then again in Genesis 20, Abram is going to be a
problem for his neighbors. Abram's neighbors take his wells. Abram's
neighbors steal his nephew, Lot, and Abram has to engage in warfare. In
every single one of God's promises to Abram, God tests him.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? Man's extremities are God's

opportunities. You know, it's in the trials of life that we either go one
direction or another. We either revert to bitterness or our faith shines
brighter in God. And in the midst of all Abram's trials, and we might also
add in the midst of all Abram's failings, and we're going to see a big one
tonight, we can say this. God did grow Abram by grace, and Abram did
persevere to the end. That is an example for you and me, because in
precisely the areas of God's promises to you, I promise you He will test
you, just as He tested your father, Abram. And that sets the stage for the
incident that we see here. Let's review it briefly.

II. The Covenant promises are endangered by unbelief.

First look at verses 11 through 13. There we see a failure in Abram's
character. Frankly, we see a display of cowardice on Abram's part here,
and we see a failure in Abram's trust in God. Abram wouldn't have
resorted to this chicanery if he had truly trusted in God in terms of the
promises. And here we see in verses 11 through 13 the covenant promises
are endangered by unbelief. Abram has been promised by God that the
Lord would give him a seed, the Lord would give him a land, and the Lord
would make him a blessing to the nations, and Abram endangers all of
those things by his behavior here. They go down into Egypt. As they go
into Egypt, Abram knows that he has a beautiful wife. And Abram also
knows, and by the way we have copies of laws in Egypt from this time
now, that the Pharaoh had the right to take the wife and children of any
sojourner coming into his land. Now probably that would not have been
done normally with a great dignitary like Abram. But Abraham's faith
breaks down, and he knows that when he goes into Egypt, it is very likely
that either one of the local petty lords is going to try and kill him for his
wife, or that Pharaoh himself is going to hear about her, and he's going to
get rid of Abram so he can take her for his wife. And so Abram's faith
breaks down. This is a sheer breakdown in trust of the Lord. But even as
it is a breakdown in the trust of the Lord, it evidences the truthfulness of
this passage.

This passage has been brought under great ridicule by the liberal critics.
They mock, for instance, how in the world could a woman 60 years old be
considered so beautiful that Abram would be in danger of his life because
of her presence. Remember Sarai did live to be 127 years old. Perhaps she
was in the very prime of her womanhood at this time. It's very interesting
that in the parallel passage to this the next time, it does not mention that
she was beautiful. Apparently, when Abimelech tried to take her it was
because he wanted a marriage contract and a treaty between him and
Abram. It was not necessarily her outward beauty that enticed her, but
now she is still in her prime and a beautiful woman. And so Abram fears.
We also know from the times that it was a very common thing for people
from Haran to take their half-sisters as their wives. In fact, among the
Hurrians it was sort of a status symbol to be married to your half-sister.
In fact, it was such a status symbol, and we know this from the tablets of
Nuzi, that sometimes if you married a woman who wasn't your half-sister,
men would actually adopt their wives as their sisters in order to raise
their social standing. This was a big deal in this time. And so we see
numerous things which confirm the historical accuracy of this account.
Abram uses a trick from his culture to try and protect himself in an alien
culture. The culture of Egypt. Nevertheless, Abram was endangering the
covenant blessings.

You know sometimes we see our children in their late high school age or
in their college years, and we see them making decisions that we know
could haunt them for the rest of their lives, and we just shake our heads
and we say no, don't do it. What is it about freshmen? Because we know
the ramifications. And when we come to this passage, I mean, imagine
the children of Israel gathered around hearing Moses deliver the story of
how God, through his great plan of redemption, was going to raise up a
redeemer for Israel, Moses, to bring them out of the land of Egypt as
God's representative. And here they are listening to the story of the
promised seed and suddenly they see the father of the faith trying to give
away the mother of the faith. And they go, ‘No, don't do it, Abram, don't
do it.’ But Abram's lack of character shows through here. Derek Kidner
says this: "Abram's craven and torturous calculations are doubly
revealing, both of the natural character of this spiritual giant." You are
seeing what this man would have been like without grace. Nothing can
Abram claim for himself. "There is nothing of our own in our good,"
Calvin used to say. "There is nothing of our own in our good." Abram,
apart from grace, was a coward.
But we're also seeing something else. The sudden transition that it is
possible for the same person to make from the plane of faith to the plane
of fear. Abram only a few days, a few weeks, a few months before buoyed
by such faith in God that he can build an altar in the presence of his
enemies and worship, is now asking his wife to lie and endanger herself
and her virtue, her reputation and the future of all God's promises so that
he might be protected. You see, even heroes of the faith are sinners and
need to be saved by grace. And is that not one of the great testimonies of
the truthfulness of Scripture? If we had been making this up, would we
have said that about the father of the faithful? No. But because God's
words are true, He records both the good and the bad even about His
faithful servants. Here you are seeing He had another evidence, He had
another testimony of the truthfulness of Scripture, the inerrancy of
Scripture, the authority and the trustworthiness of the Scripture. Now,
from this great lack of faith where Abram asks Sarai to say, "tell them
you’re my sister." Technically true, because we know that Sarai was his
half-sister. Nevertheless it is endangering the promise of the covenant.

III. The covenant promises are preserved by the sovereign

Lord's intervention.
We see in verses 14 through 17 that when Abram fails on the job, the Lord
God of Israel does not. The Lord sees, just like He saw on the slopes of
Moriah, He sees Sarai in her time of need. And there again we learn that
God's covenant promises are preserved by His sovereign intervention, not
by us. God's covenant promises are preserved by His sovereign
intervention. Even when Abram is faithless, the Lord remains faithful.
Abram goes down into Egypt. Just as he anticipated, the Egyptians see
that Sarai is beautiful. They begin to talk about her. Word of her beauty
gets all the way to the house of Pharaoh. Pharaoh says, I've got to have
this light-skinned woman in my harem. By the way, we also know that the
Pharaohs of the day very much liked light-skinned Syrian women in their
harems to compliment the darker-skinned women who are already in
their harems. And so Pharaoh hears about Sarai and says, ‘Pick her out.
Bring her to me. Pay for her to her master.’ And so just as Abram had
planned, he received a great deal of wealth from Pharaoh, and he gave his
wife over into the harem of Pharaoh. But even when Abram is faithless,
the Lord is faithful, and he strikes Pharaoh in his house with great
plagues.

Reminds you of another thing he did in Egypt once? You see here in
Genesis 12 a foreshadow of what God is going to do in His redemption of
the people of Israel in the days to come.

IV. The heir of the covenant castigated by the nations.

And that brings us to verses 18 through 20. So far Moses has made
absolutely no comment about the morality of what Abram has done. And
that has led some commentators to say, ‘Well maybe Moses doesn't think
it's so bad, what Abram did.’ Maybe Moses thinks that this is a crafty
strategy to keep alive the hope in the midst of danger. But I want you to
note that the Lord places, through Moses’ pen, a rebuke of his servant,
Abraham, from the mouth of a pagan. Think of it. A godly man rebuked
for his untruthfulness by an idolater and a pagan. Now what do you think
Moses thinks about what Abram did? Moses is telling you, when you see
Pharaoh, the godless Pharaoh, rebuking Abram, Moses is telling you that
Abram's faith has failed here. Here we see the heir of the covenant being
castigated by the leader of a foreign nation.

But I want you to see as well. Alongside that rebuke and alongside, by the
way, of yet one more testing of the promise about Abram being a blessing
to the nations. Is he a blessing to Pharaoh? Hardly. He's the cause of
curses and famine coming upon his house. But I do want you to see in
this passage three things that we see in the Exodus.

Notice that it is famine that brings Abram into the land of Egypt, just as it
is famine that brings the brothers of Joseph into the land of Egypt. Notice
that God visits plagues on the house of Pharaoh just as in the Exodus God
visits plagues on the house of Pharaoh. And notice that Pharaoh gives
God's covenant heir plunder and wealth and riches, just as the Egyptians
gave to God's people upon their departure from Israel, we are told in
Genesis 15 and also in the book of Exodus, many riches. Moses is drawing
a parallel for us here so that in this event of the life of Abram is
prefigured a greater redemption that God is going to accomplish one day
in the future. It's accomplished not because of Abraham's faithfulness,
but because of God's faithfulness.
And therein is a lesson for us. We do not learn from this, of course, that
we should be complacent about our obedience, because God will dig us
out of this mess after all anyway. That's not the message. The message
ought to make us tremble at the thought of what we do with God's
precious promises. But it is to remind us that in the very last instance it is
not our faithfulness that assures the continuance of the promises of God:
it is God's faithfulness and the grace which He works in us.

One cannot survey the life of Abram and say that it was Abram's
righteousness that caused God to love him. No. When you survey the life
of Abram, you say "Every goodness that I see in this man is the result of
the grace implanted in him by God." For he was just an idolater from the
land of the Ur of the Chaldeans, that God by grace chose and called to be
the man of promise and to be the fountainhead of the promises of all
those who trust in Christ. Let us look to the Lord in prayer.

Our Heavenly Father, we thank You for the richness of your words, and
we ask now that You would bless it to our spiritual nourishment. We
pray, O God, that we would not take lightly the covenant promises nor
our requirements to trust You, to rely upon you and not to lean on our
own understanding. We ask these things through Jesus Christ, our Lord,
Amen.

The Mosaic Covenant

The whole area of the law of Moses and the economy of God. The Mosaic
Covenant and how it relates to the Covenant of Grace, and especially to
the New Testament, is one of the fundamental issues that underlies the
difference between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. So
bearing that in mind as we plow into this material today, I think it will
help us understand the importance on getting ourselves straight on the
scriptural teaching on this matter. If you would look at then at Exodus
chapter 2 and I want to direct your attention to the last three verses of the
chapter.

You remember the context here. Exodus chapter 2 tells you of the birth
of Moses and the second half of the chapter tells you of Moses’ failure to
help his people, and beginning his escape from Egypt. And when we
come to these last verses of Exodus chapter 2, we are told again of the
plight of Israel under the oppression of their Egyptian rulers and we read
this. Hear God’s Word:

“Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of
Egypt died. And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and
they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to
God. So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And God saw the sons of Israel, and God
took notice of them.”

Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy word, may He add His blessing to
it. Let’s pray together.

“Father, as we study Your great work of redemption in the days of

Moses, we would again be moved to wonder, love, and praise for the
power of Your redemptive plan for the way that You strengthen the arm
of the weak and you dash the oppressors to the ground. We thank you
O, Lord, for Your grace, we do not deserve such a glorious redemption
and yet that redemption which you accomplish for Israel out of the
Exodus is simply a faint shadow of the glorious redemption that we
have in Christ. As we contemplate this, as we study Your word, we ask
that You would help us to understand it aright for our sakes, for Your
glory, and for Your people’s good. We ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

The theological issues raised by the relationship between the Mosaic

economy, and all I mean by Mosaic economy is God’s way of dealing in
the time of Moses and under the covenantal relationship as it was
expressed in the Scriptures in the days of Moses as opposed to other time
frames in which he dealt with His people. The theological issues raised
by the relation of the Mosaic economy to the New Covenant are at the
heart of some of the most significant differences about biblical
interpretation in the evangelical church today. If you go to a group like
the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), or you and I had been present
at something like the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, you
would find broad agreement amongst those who call themselves
evangelicals on the issue of the authority of Scripture and on the
inspiration of Scripture and even on the inerrancy of Scripture.

But when you move into the sphere of interpretation of Scripture, you
immediately begin to see significant differences within the evangelical
community and one of the areas of difference that is most striking is in
the area of how different evangelicals understand how what was said by
God during the days of Moses relates to us as Christians, post Pentecost
in the New Covenant era. If I can frame that question slightly differently,
one of the fundamental issues in all of Christian interpretation and all
theology is, “What is the proper relation of law and gospel?” We know
that much of Paul’s writing was designed to address precisely that issue
and yet there are significant differences in interpretation of what Paul
meant and how he resolved that issue of the relationship between law and
gospel.

For instance, in both Jesus and the apostle Paul’s day, we know that there
were people who had a very different understanding of how the Mosaic
code was to function in the era of the New Covenant. The Essenes
believed in a New Covenant. You see, it is not distinctively Presbyterian
or Reformed, or even Christian to believe in a New Covenant. The
Essenes believed in a New Covenant. But the Essenes in the time of
Christ, those who were part of the Qumran sect from whom we have
gotten the Dead Sea scrolls, basically believed that the New Covenant was
going to be a pristine form of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, for
the Essenes, the New Covenant was going to be the Mosaic Covenant all
over again, but it was just going to be ‘perfecter’ if I can use that English.
The Old system was going to be restored to a level of perfection that it
had not obtained in the time of Moses and the Old Covenant in general.
So the New Covenant for the Essenes was basically the Old Covenant
cleaned up a bit and revisited.

Now needless to say, Jesus’ and Paul’s conception of the New Covenant,
of the kingdom of God, is radically different than that. You don’t have to
study much in the Sermon on the Mount to see that Jesus had a different
vision from the Essenes on the kingdom of heaven and how God’s glory
was going to be manifested in the New Covenant.

In Paul’s day, we know that there were people that Paul called ‘Judaizers’
and they followed him around in his mission work. He generally worked
in synagogues and built a core group of people who would listen. They
already knew the Old Testament. He would proclaim the Word of God to
them as they met on the Sabbath day. He would gather a group that was
willing to go deeper in their study of Scripture and to hear him set forth
the Gospel again and again and work out the implications of Jesus’
teaching and the significance of Jesus’ person and work, and in the
process, he would build a core group of a church around it.

But we also know that there were people who followed Paul around
targeting those disciples that he was working with, to explain to them that
Paul did not understand the proper relationship of the Mosaic law to the
kingdom of God or to the New Covenant. And they wanted to explain to
these new converts that Paul was working with, that they, if they were
truly going to be obedient to God, were going to have to obey the
ceremonial code of Moses.

So the issue of how the law and the ceremonial laws, the distinctive laws
of Moses in particular, how that Mosaic economy relates to the Gospel to
the New Covenant era, has been a standing issue in Christian theology
from the very beginning. It has been an area of dispute.

More recently, if we can jump forward many centuries, in the

development of dispensationalism, we mentioned briefly before we read
the Scriptures about John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth brethren and
C.I. Scoffield and the Scoffield Reference Bible. How many of you grew
up reading a Scoffield Reference Bible or a New Scoffield Reference
Bible? So there are a few. Scoffield was actually a lawyer who grew up in
the old Southern Presbyterian Church, but when he was converted, at a
Men’s Christian Association Bible studies in St. Louis, the YMCA, you
know it as today, he began to attend the YMCA’s Bible studies and
learned the Bible. And he became an avid teacher of the Bible. And
developed, in a systematic form some of the ideas that John Nelson
Darby had developed in a little less systematic form in his massive
writings and sermons. And he produced a reference Bible called the
Scoffield Reference Bible which became the single most powerful tool for
propagating the theology which we now call Dispensationalism.

In that Scoffield Reference Bible, he divided the history of redemption

into seven distinctive dispensations. And he had a very specific view of
the Mosaic covenant. Darby or Scoffield argued that the covenant, or the
dispensation of Moses, was the dispensation of law - not grace. And that
the children of Israel in fact made a mistake by agreeing to abide by the
law of God promulgated at Mt. Sinai. According to Scoffield, what they
should have said when Moses came down from the mountain with the
tablets of the law was, “We don’t want law, we want grace.” He saw the
Covenant of Abraham as a Covenant of Grace, but the Covenant of Moses
he saw as a Covenant of Works or of law. And he felt that Israel made a
fundamental mistake and went back to a form of legalism or works
righteousness when they accepted the law. Now never mind that there is
no mention at Sinai of whether the Children of Israel had an option to
choose grace or law; there is no debate.

Now, if you read the notes in your Scoffield Bibles, they are very helpful
tools to have. The notes lay out the system quite clearly. At any rate,
again, the understanding of how the Mosaic Covenant relates to the New
Covenant is at the very heart of that biblical system. Scoffield operates
from a misunderstanding of Paul’s words in Galatians. He goes to
Galatians and he hears Paul saying that we must not add law to gospel as
the basis of justification. And he deduces from that that the law, in order
not to fall into a Galatian heresy, that the law must have nothing to do
with a Christian whatsoever. And so any idea of incorporating the
Covenant of Moses into the schema of the Covenant of Grace
compromises the grace of the Gospel. So he thinks that the way you
provide the best justification for the doctrine of Grace in the believer’s
life is you make sure that you leave the law out of it.

Now many of you have been around long enough to have known at least a
little bit about the Lordship controversy which particularly raged in Bible
church circles. And Dr. Ryrie and Dr. Hodges and some of those brethren
were on one side of that controversy, and John MacArthur got himself on
the other side of that controversy. Hodges and Ryrie were accusing
John McArthur of being a legalist and McArthur was accusing Ryrie and
Hodges of being Antinomians and Arminians and there was a big raging
controversy about the relationship of faith and works in the Christian life.

Understand what is going on here. You have pure dispensationalists like

Hodges and Ryrie arguing against MacArthur who had been doing what?
Reading more and more Puritans and Reformed guys. And Macarthur
ends up with a hybrid view of redemptive history. I think he would
identify himself as dispensational and premillenial in his eschatology, but
he would identify himself as Reformed in his soteriology, his doctrine of
salvation. And he is also becoming more and more reformed in his view
of the general schema of redemptive history. And so he sees the
Reformed tradition that says justification is by faith alone, but that faith
is never alone. Okay. He sees that Reformed distinctive and he hangs on
to it and he says, if you deny that justifying faith is always accompanied
by the grace of the spirit in sanctification, then you are an Antinomian.
And Hodges and Ryrie fire back and they say what? You are a legalist
because you have brought the law into the Gospel.

And so Hodges writes in his book, Absolutely Free, that salvation is by

faith alone and basically that obedience is optional. So that we accept
Christ as Savior when we are saved, but accepting Christ as Lord is either
a secondary step or a nonessential step. And in the view of some
dispensationalists would be an undesirable step. And you have got
MacArthur firing back that that view is not an adequate view of the New
Testament teaching on justification and sanctification, nor on the New
Testament doctrine of version which says that the fundamental
confession of the Christian is what ? Jesus is Lord, and not that Jesus is
Savior. Jesus is Lord; that is the saving confession of the believer in the
New Testament. That is the simplest statement in the New Testament.
You find it in Acts chapter 8 among other places. But Jesus is Lord is the
fundamental confession of a Christian. That is not the second step for a
Christian. That is the first step in terms of the public confession. So you
have got this controversy going on.

What is going on there? It is a difference over how the Mosaic covenant

relates to the Covenant of Grace in general. So, how that issue of Law
and Gospel, and how does the moral law in particular, fit into the
Christian life are issues that are still with us today.

Another issue that revolves around how you interpret that Mosaic
Covenant is the issue of Theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism. You
know that there are some people who believe that all the nonceremonial
laws in the Old Testament continue to be binding on all Christians. The
Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of three aspects of the law:
moral, civil and ceremonial. Most Theonomists argue that there are only
two categories of law: moral/civil and ceremonial. And then they go on to
argue that all of the moral/civil law in the Old Testament is still binding
on believers personally and corporately in the New Covenant, so that we
not only must obey the core of the law, the moral law as expressed in the
Ten Commandments for instance, but we must also work for the
implementation in our society of the civil law contained in the law of
Moses.

Now again, whereas the Dispensational view sees a radical discontinuity

between the Mosaic law and the Christian Gospel, the Theonomic or the
Reconstructionist view of law sees a radical continuity between the
Mosaic code and the New Covenant ethic. In fact, it is framed in
diametric opposition to the Dispensationalist view. The dispensationalist
view, for instance, says if a law isn’t repeated in the New Testament, then
it is not for the Christian. So what does the Theonomist say in
opposition? Unless a law is repealed in the New Testament, it is for the
Christian. So the whole structure of the view of the law in Theonomy is in
opposition to dispensational categories.

If you are not familiar with the background of Theonomy, Theonomy

really originates with a man named R.J. Rushdooney. Two of his more
famous students were Gary North and Greg Bahnsen. As a young man
he wrote a book called Theonomy and Christian Ethics. This was a
raging issue in certain segments of the Reformed community and it is still
a debate in some areas of the Reformed community, though not quite as
heated as it once was.

Again, those issues like Dispensationalism and Theonomy also revolve

around your understanding of how the Mosaic Covenant fits into the
Covenant of Grace, and especially with regard to dispensationalism, and
in what way the Mosaic Covenant relates to the Covenant of Works. We
have already talked about the Covenant of Works in the Garden prior to
the Fall. And for Dispensationalists the Mosaic Covenant is basically a
repetition of the Covenant of Works.

Now Covenant Theologians have described the covenant with Moses

differently over the years, and there has been some confusion over the
this issue even amongst Reformed Theologians. But in general, while
Reformed Theologians acknowledge that there are aspects of the
Covenant of Moses or the Covenant of Law, which reflect some of the
language and ideas of the Covenant of Works, nevertheless, the Covenant
of Law, or the Covenant of Moses, or the Mosaic Economy, is squarely
within the stream of the Covenant of Grace. It is not an alternate option
to the Covenant of Works given to us by God in the Old Testament It is
part of the Covenant of Grace. It is not saying, “Well, okay, if you don’t
get saved by faith as under Abraham, you can try law under Moses.” That
is not the point.

One reason why I read Exodus chapter two and last three verses, was so
that you will notice that Moses himself, in those verses, when he is getting
ready to tell you the story of the Exodus, links God’s redemptive work in
the Exodus to what? The Covenant of Abraham. So as far as Moses is
concerned, there is no radical dichotomy between what God is doing with
His people in the time of the Exodus and what God promised to
Abraham. In fact, he says that the reason God came to His
people’s rescue was because He remembered the promise He
had made with Abraham. And if you will remember back to our study
of Genesis chapter 15, God went out of His way to tell Abraham about the
oppression of Israel in Egypt and about the fact that He was going to
bring them out of Egypt as a mighty nation, and that He was going to give
them the land of Canaan. And so, Moses goes out of his way in both
Genesis 15 and in Exodus 2 to link the Mosaic Economy with the
Abrahamic Covenant, so that the Mosaic Economy isn’t something that is
replacing the way that God deals with His people, under Abraham; it is
expanding what God was doing with His people through Abraham.

The Mosaic Covenant receives more elaboration than any other covenant
in the Bible. The details and the stipulations of the Covenant of God in
the time of Moses are more detailed than any other covenant
relationship, and when the New Testament wants to contrast the work of
God in the New Covenant era to the work of God in the Old Covenant era,
it will use the Mosaic Covenant as a foil. We will look at that when we get
to our New Testament studies, and I will try and walk you through the
different ways that the New Testament uses the Abrahamic and the
Mosaic Covenant.

There are some ways that the Old Testament uses the Covenant of God
with Moses which help you understand how a person could
misunderstand the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the Covenant
of Grace, because for instance, when Paul wants to argue that God has
always saved His people in the same way, by using the instrument of faith
and justifying them by grace, what covenant does he appeal to? The
covenant of Abraham. But when Paul wants to stress the discontinuities
and the greater glories of the New Covenant, what covenant will He
appeal to? He will go right back to the Covenant of Moses.

So the way that the New Testament writers will use these covenants,
could lead the reader who was not watching closely what they were doing
and saying, to think that the New Testament had a negative assessment of
Moses and a positive assessment of Abraham. So I understand how
Scoffield could have gotten where he got, but he is still wrong. It is just
easy to see how you could get there. The New Testament writers give us
subtle hints that you have to watch very closely in order to understand
that they do not have a fundamental criticism of God’s work under the
Covenant of Moses. They have a problem with how Moses has been
misappropriated by both the Jews and the Judaizers.

When you are in polemics against a false teaching, what do you tend to
do? You tend to speak negatively about the other teaching. Your job at
that point is not to say, you know there fifteen things right about that
teaching. What you tend to do is say, no, there are fifteen things wrong
about it and leave it at that. And the New Testament is constantly in
polemic against both what? Jewish theology and Jewish Rabbinic
theology and Judaizing theology which attempt to draw Christians back
into some sort of mandatory ceremonial observance in order to be full
Gospel Christians, if you will. So, it is easy to see how this could happen
and we will look at this issue with you very briefly.

The Covenant and the Law.

First of all, I want to take up the issue of the relationship of the covenant
to the law. The relationship of the Covenant to the Law. It is tempting to
lose the forest for the trees when you come to the covenant, because law
so dominates what Moses gives us during his specific era of the Covenant
of Grace from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Law so dominates that that it is
possible for covenant to fade into the background of our minds as we are
reading this massive presentation of the law of God. It is also possible for
us to lose the continued grace emphasis which is there from Exodus to
Deuteronomy. Exodus and Deuteronomy especially are books of Grace.

An acquaintance of mine and a friend of many of the faculty members

here, a gentleman named Gordon McConvill, an Old Testament
professor, wrote a theology of Deuteronomy not too long ago, entitled
Grace in the End. Now that is not a bad title at all for a theological
study of Deuteronomy.

But, the law is so up front and in your face in this presentation in this
segment of redemptive history it is possible to lose the forest for the
trees. You are right up on the law, and though it is right in front of you,
you can miss what is actually a larger picture. And so I want to give you a
proposition that you have already read in Robertson’s book, in his section
on the Covenant of Moses, or the Covenant of Law. And here is the
proposition: the concept of Covenant, even in the Mosaic economy, the
concept of covenant is larger than law. Let me give you Robertson’s
words. “Nothing could be more basic to a proper understanding of the
Mosaic era, than that covenant supersedes law. It is not law that is
preeminent, but covenant. Whatever concept of law may be advanced, it
must remain at all times, subservient to the broader concept of covenant.
So what ? And what does that mean? Okay. So what, we will start with
that one, and then we will go back to what does it mean.

Law is basically an extrapolation of stipulations in a covenant.

Every covenant has requirements. Every covenant has stipulations.
Law is just an expansion. It is just an elaboration on those stipulations.
So law in believing experience has its origins in the requirements of the
covenant. But you see, if that is the case, then covenant is the broader
concept under which law must be understood. Now, do you see
immediately how that, in and of itself, protects us from a legalistic
interpretation of the Gospel? If you view law as some sort of independent
way of relating to God, apart from the Covenant of Grace, then you don’t
understand that law as it is first presented in the Scriptures, comes within
the framework of a covenant relationship already established. And of
course, the classic proof of that is in the book of Exodus, itself.
Remember again, Exodus 2 verses 23, 24, and 25, especially 24. The
whole Exodus experience is in response to what? God’s covenant with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But if you will turn over with me to Exodus,
the twentieth chapter of Exodus, you will see this stressed again.

“Then God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

And then He begins to give the commandments,

“You shall have no other gods before Me.”

Now friends, it is vital for you to you understand the framework in which
He gives the essence of the moral law in Exodus chapter 20. It is the
framework of having done what? Already having brought Israel out of
Egypt. He does not say, “If you will keep these commandments, then I
will bring you out of Egypt.” He says, “I am the Lord your God, I am
already in covenant relationship with you, I’ve already brought you out of
land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, by the grace of the covenant, in
response to the groans of Israel, I remembered the covenant with
Abraham, therefore, you shall have no other gods before Me.” You see, it
makes all the difference in the world, in the way you read that law. That
law cannot be viewed as an independent way of dragging ourselves up by
our boots and earning our way into relationship with God again. Law
becomes what? The Law is household instruction for the covenant family
from the God of Grace who has saved us by grace.

And there is no more radical transformation for your concept of law, than
that particular understanding. If you understand that law is a derivative
of the requirements of the covenant, so that the grace of the covenant and
the covenant relationship itself provide the framework in which the
believer always understands the law, you’ll never fall into the idea that
the law is an alternative way of relating to God apart from the faith and
grace of the covenant. See, only someone who doesn’t understand that
covenant framework, could possibly fall into the trap of legalism. And
because, for instance, our dispensational friends reject that covenant
framework, they think that the only way you can get rid of legalism is to
do what? Get rid of the law. But how does the Psalmist sing, How I Love
Thy Law O Lord, if you get rid of the law? The answer is not getting rid
of the law; it is understanding how the law functions within the
framework of the Covenant of Grace.

Do you grasp this? Covenant is the larger concept. It takes

precedence over the law. It provides a context for the law.
Remember, a covenant by definition, has conditions. As we said, there is
a sense in which there is no such thing as an unconditional covenant.
Those conditions may be graciously fulfilled by the Lord, but there are
still conditions for every covenant. Because every covenant has mutuality
in it, there is no such thing as a covenant in isolation. Covenant is always
in relationship and relationship by definition have mutuality. So, a
covenant by definition has conditions. And that aspect of the covenant
becomes the foundation for Old Testament law.

Now it is also true, and I would want to stress this with all other good
Reformed theologians, that law is ultimately an expression of what? The
character of God. Law is not an arbitrary proclamation by God. It is an
expression of who He is. So it is not arbitrary. These conditions of the
covenant are not arbitrary in any degree. This ethic is grounded in what
God is like. And by the way, that is just another reason why we can’t
simply willy, nilly, dismiss the law in order to protect grace. That is
saying, “God, we have to forget what You are like, in order to really
understand grace.” Whereas the Reformed approach is, “No, you can’t
really understand grace until you know what God is like.”

And so you never want to run away from the law. You just don’t want
ever, ever to misuse it in such a way that you think it is somewhat of an
alternative path into relationship with God that He provided apart from
the Covenant of Grace. Because we are fallen, we have already lost the
game before we are out of the blocks. So, you have got to understand how
the law functions within the Covenant of Grace.

Now, the key to dealing with the Mosaic Covenant is to understand why
the New Testament talks about the Mosaic Covenant the way it does. For
instance, without turning there, let me just recall to your mind the words
of the Apostle Paul. You remember early in Romans where he says, “You
are not under law, you are under grace.” And you can remember words
early in the Gospel of John, where John speaks of “Moses bringing the
law, but the Lord, Jesus Christ, bringing grace and peace.” And what do
you get? You get the language of contrast between especially the Mosaic
form of the Old Covenant and the Covenant of Grace under Jesus Christ.
And this again leads people to draw the incorrect deduction, “Ah ha,
these two things are in opposition to one another. You know, the law of
Moses is opposed to the grace of Christ, and if we really want to hold up
to the grace of Christ, we have got to get rid of the law of Moses.”

But, note what the New Testament is doing very carefully when it does
this. It is actually highlighting the distinctive emphasis of the Covenant
of Moses. And what is the distinctive emphasis of the Covenant of
Moses? Robertson has already told you. The distinctive emphasis of the
Covenant of Moses is that in the Covenant of Moses, God externally
summarizes His will for man with His own finger; God writes the law.

Now don’t miss what is happening in Exodus 20-24. This is not the first
time that God has revealed moral law. From Genesis 1 to Exodus 19, it is
painfully apparent that there is a moral order to this universe. I have
been arguing at Fist Pres in our series on Genesis that much of what
Genesis 1-6 does is to try and convince you that there is a moral order to
this universe and if you mess with it, you are going to be judged. So
Moses is arguing for a moral order to this universe out of the blocks in the
book of Genesis.

And, behind that moral order, is a moral law giver. And He is the Lord
God of Israel, the Lord God of heaven and earth, the maker and creator.
That idea is not introduced to us in Exodus 20, but never before has the
creator written down His code on a piece of stone, until you get to Sinai.
And so the very highlight of the progress of the covenant, and I want you
to see this as progress and we are going to look at the ways in which it is
progress in just a few moments, but the very progress of the covenant is
seen under the Mosaic Covenant in God’s externally summarizing His
will, externally summarizing that moral order.

Advantages of the Mosaic Covenant

In fact, let me argue that there were at least four things in the Mosaic
Covenant in which it advanced our understanding of the Covenant of
Grace over the expression of the Covenant of Grace in the time of
Abraham. You see, far from being some sort of a retrogression, far from
going backwards, the Mosaic Covenant enhanced our understanding of
the Covenant of Grace. The first way that it did that is that in the Mosaic
Covenant, God formed Israel into a nation. There is a real sense in which
the Exodus is the crucible in which the nation of Israel was created.
There had already begun to be a people of Israel. In the time of Abraham,
God singled out Abraham’s family and isolated them as a particular, as a
peculiar, as a unique, as a distinctive, faith family through which He
would engage in His covenant dealings. And Abraham had descendants
just as God had planned. But they weren’t formed into a unified nation
until the event of the Exodus. Do you not understand what is going on
there? In all those stipulations about the whole of Israel, about fighting
to eradicate the aliens, or the eradicate the natives who are aliened to the
land of promise, but who have lived in the land of Canaan, the fact that
the tribes who are Transjordan tribes who are east of the Jordan have to
obligate themselves to continue to fight with the army of Israel until all
the lands which God has given to Israel to occupy all of those things.
What is the purpose of that? To consolidate that people into a nation.

Now that is an advancement in the covenant work of God. He has moved

His work from the level of merely the family to the nation. And what do
the prophets begin to stress immediately about His work in the New
Covenant? That He will move it yet to a higher phase: from the family, to
the nation, and then to the nations. The Messiah will draw all the nations
to Him. “The peoples that walked in darkness. They will see a great
light.” The Gentiles, they will see a great light. They will all stream into
the mount of Zion. And from the family to the nation, to this
transnational entity that He will bring into being, the church. So this
movement from family to nation is a definitely a step forward. That is
one way in which it was an advancement over the Abrahamic Covenant.

Secondly, the comprehensiveness of the revelation in the Mosaic

Covenant is an advancement over the Abrahamic Economy and all that
went before it. We have talked before about the doctrine of sin in Genesis
1-11 and we have talked before about how even the liberals recognize that
in Genesis 3 and in Genesis 4 and in Genesis 5, and in Genesis 10 and 11
that the authors, as they would say, are trying to build a case for mans
sinfulness which “gets God off the hook” for the existence of evil in the
world. Now, though we would not agree with the way the liberals
characterize it, they have caught onto something, they understand
correctly that Moses is building for us there a doctrine of sin in those
passages. You can’t come away from three, four, five, ten, and eleven
without a doctrine of sin. You read those passages, and you are going to
have a doctrine of sin.

But let me tell you, when you have finished reading Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, your doctrine of sin has been exponentially
altered. Because you have a code which is so comprehensive that it
touches every area of life. Personal, familial, community, society,
judicial, military, religious, vocational; every area of life is touched by this
law. And if you had any doubts about what sin was before, most of them
have been solved by the time you have read through the extensive code of
Moses. The comprehensive revelation of the Mosaic Covenant out strips
anything that has gone before it. Even in its expression of the issue of
sin. Now let me also say that Moses makes a great point of saying that
the comprehensiveness of Revelation that he has of God out strips
anything that has gone before. What, would, if you had to pick one
passage, of talking with your folks in the church, what would be the one
passage that you would go to, to show that under Moses that our
appreciation and understanding of who God is transcends what has gone
before it. Even in the gracious Covenant of Abraham. What one passage
would you go to? Exodus 6, turn with me to Exodus 6. And it is
elaborating on this simple statement. Exodus 6, begin in verse 1.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, "Now you shall see what I will do to
Pharaoh; for under compulsion he shall let them go, and under
compulsion he shall drive them out of his land." God spoke further to
Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not
make Myself known to them.”

Now, you Hebrew scholars know that the title for God, Lord, was in fact
used prior to Exodus 6. You find it scattered throughout the book of
Genesis. So what in the world does Exodus 6 mean when He says,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn’t know My by My name, the Lord? Well,
I can give you the thirty second version, but if you really want to study
this, there is a wonderful little book, called The Revelation of the
Divine Name, it is only about twenty pages, or so, by Alec Motyer. You
have probably read Alec Motyer before. He writes for Intervarsity. He
has a wonderful commentary on Isaiah, and has written popular
commentaries in The Bible Speaks Today series. In his little article, The
Revelation of the Divine Name, which was published by what used
to be called, IVF, Intervarsity Fellowship, which is now called, UCCF, The
University and Christian Colleges Fellowship in Britain, he argues this
point. What God is saying there in Exodus 6 is not that they didn’t know
that name, the Lord, which they clearly did. But that they didn’t have an
inkling of the glorious significance of what that name, the Lord meant.
But that the children of Israel were going to know when God was finished
dealing with Pharaoh. So why is it that Moses tells Pharaoh that he
wants the people of God to be released? Remember? So that they can
worship.

Now I don’t know how you reacted to that, but as a kid reading that, and
knowing the story of Exodus, I always thought that it was a trick. That
Moses was in fact, lying to Pharaoh, telling him that all we want to do is
go out and have a worship service and we will be right back. But that is
not the point of that repeated phrase, and you will find it repeated a
dozen or more times, in the story of the children of Israel in Egypt. The
point is that really was God’s reason for bringing the children of Israel out
of Egypt. He wanted them to worship. But you can’t worship someone
that you don’t know. And so even in the way that he brought the children
of Israel out of Egypt, God revealed Himself to them, in such a way that
they would have a reason to worship Him with an understanding and an
intensity which transcended anything that they had ever experienced
before.

And it is not surprising my friends, that the Song of Moses, and the Song
of Miriam, occur immediately after the great deliverance of the children
of God at the Red Sea, because they were there to worship. And so in
Exodus 6, we see that God revealed Himself in the days of Moses in a way
that transcended the way that He had revealed Himself in the times of
Abraham and Isaac, and that is why He can be revealed to them in Moses’
days as the God of loving kindness, as the God who is patient, as the God
of mercy, as the God of covenant, as the God who bore them out on eagles
wings. And we could pile up all those glorious descriptions in Exodus
and in Deuteronomy, that is why He can be described in that way. It is
far beyond anything that Abraham could have grasped. Because
Abraham did not see the glorious revelation of the divine name like
Moses and Israel saw it. So that is the second way in which we see an
advancement in the Covenant of Moses, not only was Israel formed into a
nation, but there is a comprehensiveness of revelation in the Mosaic
Covenant that transcends Abraham.

Thirdly, the Mosaic Covenant has a greater capacity to humble men. The
Mosaic Covenant, the revelation given there in the covenant has a greater
capacity to humble men. Think of the phrase, repeat it over and over in
Exodus, just as the Lord commanded. Man’s natural instinct is to
worship God in the way that he wants to. The way that is most
convenient for him, is pleasing to him, is pleasurable to him. Man’s
temptation is to “worship God” really thinking of himself as the primary
audience in worship. Over and over, the Mosaic Covenant points us to
the object of worship, God, by reminding us that God does not only want
us to worship Him, but He wants us to worship Him in His way. And
what does that do? It humbles mans’ natural inclinations and makes him
bow the knee to the Maker, not only in worshipping Him, but in
worshipping Him in accordance with His will. Because people can
accidentally worship themselves, when they think they are worshipping
God, if they don’t worship God in the way that God says that God says
that He wants to be worshipped. And so that very emphasis in the
Mosaic Covenant, and you see it from the beginning to the end of the
book of Exodus, is a way of humbling us, and saying to us, you must not
only worship God, but you must submit your will to His as you worship
Him, even in the way you worship. Now we could point to other ways in
which the Mosaic Covenant humbles us, but that is a good example.

A fourth way in which the Mosaic economy is an advancement over the

Abrahamic Covenant. In the Mosaic Covenant, we see a fuller picture of
the holiness of God, and of the holiness expected of the people of God.
You cannot read the book of Leviticus, if you read it closely at all, without
catching the twin themes of consecration and atonement. The whole
book revolves around those two themes: Consecration, our being set
apart in preparation for worshipping God, and Atonement, the
requirement necessary for entrance into fellowship with God. And both
of those aspects stress the holiness of God. To come into His presence,
you must be set apart, set apart from that which is sinful, set apart from
that which is worldly, and you must be atoned for. Why? Because He is
holy, and you are not. The very fact that the children of Israel had God in
their midst as they traveled through the wilderness required them to obey
all manner of burdensome rules. The refuse of the children of Israel
couldn’t be poured out in the camp. It had to be taken outside of the
camp and poured out. Why? Not because it would have been unpleasant
for the people of God to live with, but because God was dwelling in their
midst. And so in all those ways, we see an advancement in the Covenant
of Moses. It is not going backwards. God is moving forward in His
Covenant of Grace.

Now, quickly reviewing. We have first of all said, that theological issues
raised by the Mosaic Covenant are among the thorniest in the church
today. Even within evangelicals, there are differences about how the
Mosaic Covenant relates to the New Covenant era. And particular, there
are differences in how the moral law relates to the Christian. We have
also argued that Covenant is the larger concept, between the choices of
covenant and law. And that you only properly understand the law’s role
in the believers life, whether in the Old Covenant, or in the New
Covenant, if you understand that law is subsumed under the broader,
more profound, and more basic rubric of covenant. That law is actually
an extension of the requirements, or conditions, or stipulations, of the
covenant. We said if you understand that, you are protected either from
legalism or antinomianism. But that if you do not understand law’s
relationship to covenant, you can actually fall into legalism and
antenomianism simultaneously. Believe it or not, it can be done. And we
have said that one of the problems of dispensationalists, of consistent
dispensationalists, one of the reasons why Reformed theologians very
frequently refer to them as antinomian in their view of the Christian life
is precisely because many of those of the dispensationalist camp have
decided that the only way that you can preach grace is to do away with the
law, and to say that the believer has nothing to do with the law, and to
read those very categorical statement of Paul in the New Testament as if
Paul’s problem was with the law itself, or with the believer incorporating
any aspect or use of law in the believer’s life.

Now, having said that covenant was the larger concept of law, we have
looked at the distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant. In the
distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant we said there was an external
summarization of God’s will optimized in God’s writing of the ten words
on stone.

The Unity of the Law, the Mosaic Covenant, and Grace

And I want to emphasize to you that in the Old Testament in the book
of Exodus in particular, those ten words, are linked very directly to the
covenant itself. Look with me at a few passages. For instance, in Exodus
34, verse 28, listen to these words. Exodus 34:28 –

So he, Moses, was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did
not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the
covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

So notice how closely, the words of the covenant, the covenant itself, are
linked to the Ten Commandments. So that, that external summarization
of God’s will, is called the Words of the Covenant. That is not the only
place. Turn over to Deuteronomy, chapter 4. This language will remind
you of Genesis 17, when the sign of the covenant is called the covenant.
And the Covenant is called the sign. Listen to this. Exodus 4:13

“So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to

perform, that is, the Ten Commandments;”

Now that is a classic passage which would lead someone with a

dispensational interpretation of Scripture, to say, “Ah ha, you see, the
Mosaic Covenant is a performance based, works based covenant in the
way we relate to God. Because there it says that this is the covenant
which He commanded you to perform, that is the Ten Commandments.
You see, this is an alternative to faith, as in the covenant of Abraham.”
But if you don’t understand the way that covenants speak of outward
forms, like the covenant sign, or the Tables of the Covenants, as
representative of the covenant itself, you could misunderstand that.

What is Moses doing there? He is tying together, as closely as possible,

that thing which optimizes the covenant of Moses. The economy of law
here, that is the external summarization of God’s will in the Ten
Commandments, itself. Those are the words of the covenant; they are the
covenant itself. Does that mean that this is a covenant by law, and not by
grace? Moses would have scratched his head in wonderment at you, had
you asked him the question. What does he want you to see? The thing
which characterizes, which optimizes God’s redeeming work in the era of
the Mosaic covenant, is this external summarization of His law in the Ten
Commandments. Turn forward to Deuteronomy 9, Deuteronomy 9, verse
9.

“When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the

tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I
remained on the mountain forty days and nights;” and down at verse 11,
“And it came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD
gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.”

Now again, just like in Deuteronomy 4:13, we see this linkage between the
covenant itself, and the words, the ten words, the Ten Commandments.
And by the way, this time, we see this linkage after Moses has said two
very significant things. Actually it is the Lord who said these things, and
Moses by the inspiration of the Spirit, has recorded them. Back in
Deuteronomy 7, beginning in verse 6, Moses has recorded these words of
the Lord.
 “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God
has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the
peoples who are on the face of the earth. "The LORD did not set His love
on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the
peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD
loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers,”

And so in that passage, the Lord makes it very clear that He didn’t not
enter into relationship with the children of Israel because of some quality
in them - but because of a quality in Him. His love. Now, this is
tantalizing because He won’t go any further than that. And you are going
to have to ask the Lord face to face when you get to glory, because that is
the only answer that God gives to the question of “Why am I a guest at
the feast of the marriage supper of the Lamb?” His answer is, “It is
because I loved you.” Now He says that not in the New Testament: He
says it in the Covenant of Moses. Which is a Covenant of Grace. And
then He says it again, right before He speaks of this tables of the covenant
in Deuteronomy 9:9 and 11, look at verses 4, 5, and 6, in Deuteronomy
chapter 9.

“Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them
out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me
in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these
nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. "It is not for
your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going
to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations
that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to
confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. "Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that
the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a
stubborn people.”

Now, look at what He does. He hedges you about on every side. He says,
“You want to know why I have put my heart on you? It is because I love
you. And you know why I am bringing judgment against them? It is not
because you are better than them. It is because they are in wicked
rebellion against Me, and I have chosen in My justice to bring judgment
against them. And you, because of the covenant I have made with
Abraham, are the beneficiary. But it is not because of your
righteousness.” That is not Paul; that is Moses. Okay. So don’t tell me
that Paul didn’t understand Moses, or that Moses was in opposition to
Paul. That is Moses telling you that. And that is right smack dab in the
midst of this covenant that some have been so unfair as to characterize as
a covenant of works.

Now, what then do you do with the passage or two that we mentioned in
the New Testament. Turn with me for instance to the Gospel of John.
John chapter 1, verse 17. John 1:17, a classic passage appealed to,
especially by our old-timey dispensational friends. Here is where they
go. John 1:17.

“For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized
through Jesus Christ.”

And as you remember, the authorized version of the King James Version
hardens the contrast, so it reads like, “For the Law was given through
Moses, but grace and truth were realized …” And they say, “See, can’t mix
up Grace and Law. Law, that is Old Testament. It doesn’t have anything
to do with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn’t have anything
to do with Grace and Peace and Truth. That is New Covenant stuff.” Is
that how to read John?

There are two keys to understanding what John is doing here. First of all,
you must understand a principle beautifully phrased by John Murray as a
relative contrast in absolute terms. The New Testament does it all the
time. It makes a relative contrast in absolute terms. When God, the Holy
Spirit, speaking through the Apostle John, says that “Law was given
through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ,”
let me ask you two questions. Is he saying, that there was no grace in the
Old Covenant? If so, explain to me Noah. Explain to me Abraham.
Explain to me Deuteronomy 7 and 9. Explain to me David. So, you have
gotten the point. This is a relative contrast in absolute terms.

Now, let me flip the question around the other way. Is he saying that
there is no Law under the New Covenant? The Law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth realized through Jesus Christ. Do you remember the
words that came from this apostle’s mouth recorded for us, telling the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ. “If you love Me, keep my
commandments.” Now it is going to be a scant fourteen chapters, before
he gets to that statement. Could he be so senile when he wrote this that
he had forgotten that he had made this statement in John chapter 1? No.
The statements are perfectly consonant, because it is a relative contrast in
absolute terms. That is the first way you understand what John is doing
here.

The second way that you understand this statement is to understand that
John is trying to encapsulate in a few words, under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit and beautifully characterizing the epitome of those two
covenantal administrations. If you wanted to characterize the glory of
God’s revelation in the time of Moses, where do you start? The law. You
are overwhelmed by the law, when you look at the Mosaic revelation.
And even our Lord Jesus doesn’t say, in the Sermon on the Mount, I am
going to give you a new law. No, the law is going to stay the same. The
Lord Jesus is going to apply it in such a way, that it can be seen for the
fullness that it is, having scraped away all the encrustation’s of the
Rabbinic and Pharisaical tradition. But He doesn’t give a new law.
Notice that Jesus’ words of contrast in the Sermon on the Mount are not,
“Moses said,” but I say.” That is not what the Sermon on the Mount says.
What is the contrast of the Sermon on the Mount? “You have heard, but I
say.” What is His point of contrast? The incorrect exposition of the Law
which the people of God had heard through the tradition of elders
contrasted to His correct and divinely authoritative exposition of the Law
as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. So His contrast is not “Moses
said, but I say.” But is, “You have heard that people said,” or “You have
heard people say that Moses says,” but “Let me tell you what Moses says,
because I wrote it.” That is the contrast on the Sermon on the Mount.
That law is My law. Moses was My instrument. Let me tell you what I
meant when I wrote the Ten Commandments.

So the contrast is not between the old system of ethics, and the new
system of ethics. It is at one level, between a misunderstanding of that
system and Jesus’ full understanding of that system. And of course, in
the backdrop of it, even in the Sermon on the Mount, is the
understanding of the ethical system in light of the person and work of
Christ. But that is another story for another day.

So, when you come to a passage like John 1:17, you understand that John
is encapsulating for you what was the epitome of the Mosaic economy,
the expression of the law. God, Himself, wrote with His own finger, the
moral standards for all His people.

But, what was the epitome of the New Covenant? The achievement of
grace and truth in the lives of God’s people, through the operation of the
Holy Spirit dispensed from the right hand of God and from the ascended
Christ. That is the essence. And as the Apostle Paul will argue in II
Corinthians chapter 3, and it seems to me that his words are almost a
gloss on John 1:17, he is going to argue, not that there was no glory in the
former, and only glory in the latter. But rather he will argue that there
was glory in the former. But there was much greater glory in the latter.
You see, it is on a continuum. It was from the lesser to the greater. If
there was so much glory that Moses had to veil his face under the Old
Covenant, how much more glory is there for the minister of the New
Covenant? It is a relative contrast in absolute terms, and it is a phrase
designed to stress the respective epitomes of those two covenantal
administrations. It is not an absolute contrast. It is not excluding grace
under the Old Covenant, nor is it excluding Law under the New
Covenant. That is not the point of the argument, even contextually, if we
were to go back and do contextual exegesis there. John’s point is not
draw some sort of a radical dichotomy.

Now, another passage, an infamous passage, Galatians 3. Galatians is

consistently interpreted by nonReformed evangelical interpreters as a
book which proves that Paul had no place for the law in the Christian life,
and that any bringing in of the Christian law in the Christian life is, in
fact, a compromise of the Gospel itself. Which put us Reformed folks in a
rather precarious position. According to that interpretation, we are
hanging with the Pharisees and the Judaizers. But look at what Paul says
in Galatians 3, beginning in verse 13.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse
for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A
TREE"- - in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might
come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the faith”

Notice that Paul is saying that the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost,
and the ongoing work of the Spirit in regeneration, and the indwelling
work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life is a result of what? Our
receiving the promises that God made to Abraham. This is not a new
plan, Paul is saying. It is not that they had it one way. The Spirit wasn’t
operative under that old covenant thing. And we have it a new way. No,
the very indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us, the very outpouring of the
Holy Spirit in His initial regenerating work in His ongoing sanctifying
work in us, is a response to the promise that God gave to Abraham, so
that we believers, all of us, are a recipients and participants in the
Covenant of Grace made with Abraham. It is all part of the same glorious
structure of the Covenant of Grace. But notice, what He keeps on saying
here.

“Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a

man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds
conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his
seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to
one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law,
which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a
covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.”

Now, here is Paul’s logic. Paul is saying, at the very outset, the Mosaic
Covenant was never designed to replace the Abrahamic Covenant, nor to
modify the stipulations or conditions, or requirements, whatever term
you want to use there of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is never designed to
do that. It wasn’t a replacement, it wasn’t an alternative way of salvation,
you misunderstand the function of it, if you think that God is now
offering an alternative way of salvation, or as He is adding to the grace
requirements of the Covenant of Abraham. For if the inheritance is based
upon Law, it is no longer based on a promise, but God has granted it to
Abraham by means of a promise. So there is his argument. That is the
basis of the inheritance -- the oath. And you hear the language of what?
Of Deuteronomy 7 and 9 coming through there. Paul is not quarreling
with Moses; he is exegeting Moses here.
Then he goes on to say, “Why the Law, then?” Good question. It was
added because of transgressions, or you could translate it, it was added
for the sake of defining the transgressions. Having been ordained by
angels by the agency of a mediator until the seed should come to whom
the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only,
whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of
God.

So Paul’s initial statement is it was added in order to heighten our

understanding of transgression, which would have been a shocking
statement about the Law to the Jews of this day. That would have
seemed irreverent. And can you hear the echo of the Judaizers
challenge/question to Paul in Romans 3 on this. “Do we say that we sin
that grace might abound? Do You mean You are saying the Law is there
so that sin will increase?”

No, no, no, you don’t understand. The Law is there in order to heighten
your awareness of sin. And that is not the only reason Paul is not giving
you the full scope of the law. He is arguing in the context of a polemic
and he is highlighting one specific function of the law, in order to do
what? To tweak the noses of the Judaizers, but not just to be difficult, to
make them think about the function of the Law, and Paul’s fundamental
objection to the Judaizers is what? They have never, A. understood the
law, and B. they have never understood what the Law was for. And that
means at least they have not understood all of the functions that God
intended the Law to play. And because they have they misunderstood
that, they have completely skewed what the Scriptures say about the way
that God relates to man, and how God accepts man. Or to turn it around,
and speak of it in a Pauline term, in what way we are accounted righteous
before God, in what way we stand right before Him, in what way we are
acquitted before Him. Because they misunderstand the function of the
law, they are confused about everything else.

But immediately he comes back to this question, because he knows that

some people are going to misread what he is saying; the Judaizers
certainly, but even perhaps some friends. And they are going to say,
“Well that means, Paul, that the Law must be contrary to the Covenant of
Abraham and its promises,” and so he says, “Is the Law then contrary to
the promises of God?” No. For, if a Law had been given which was
enable to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based
on Law, but the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, but the promise
by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Paul is again hitting them at what level? At the level of the function of the
Law. He says, “In a fallen world, you have to understand that the Law in
and of itself and by itself cannot justify,” and he tells you why in verse 22.

“But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin,”

The Law can only justify you if you are perfect. Now understand Paul’s
polemic is not to say that it would be inherently wrong for God to justify
somebody because they were perfect. That is not Paul’s polemic at all. In
fact, the apostle Paul will use that polemic to show that Jesus Christ was
justified on the basis of obedience, so that you could be justified on the
basis of His obedience as you have faith in Him. Paul had no problem
with the concept of “do this and live.” Paul has no problem with the
concept of do and live. On at least two occasions, his frontal assault
against Judaizers, psuedoPharisees, will be, “You think you live by the
Law; do it! You think you can stand before God and say, Lord, I did this,
I did that.. Fine. I will be standing there with you on the judgment day.
You just go ahead and live that way. And if you are perfect God will
accept you, I promise He will. Just go ahead and do it.”

You see, then Paul’s argument, is, “Oh no, that would be against grace
for you to attempt to be justified by God that way.” No. That is not Paul’s
argument at all. Paul’s argument is, “Bubba, that doesn’t work, because
you are already a sinner. The Scripture has shut you up in sin, and what I
am trying to press home to you, is that you don’t understand the function
of the Law in the context of believing, covenantal fellowship with God.
The function of the Law is not to get you justified, before God.” That is
not the function of the Law. The Law is not able to impart life, he
stresses in verse 21. The Law in and of itself, cannot impart life.

Now this is a key element of the New Covenant ethic. The New Covenant
ethic, contrary to much popular belief in teaching, does not say that Law
is bad and grace is good. Or Law is bad and faith is good. Or Law is bad,
but the Holy Spirit is good. That kind of contrast is not the New
Covenant ethic. The New Covenant ethic says, “Look, the Law
continues to be the standard of obedience, but the law in and of
itself is not capable of producing obedience, only the Holy
Spirit is.” And the Holy Spirit produces that obedience by His
grace work, the instrument of that obedience in us is our faith,
and by faith we then produce the fruit of obedience in the
keeping of the Law. Is this clear? And so Paul says to these people,
“The law is not capable of imparting life. Only the Holy Sprit can do that
in accordance with grace. The instrument that God has chosen for that is
faith. And obedience is the product of that work of the Spirit,
not the cause of it.”

Then he goes on to argue:

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut
up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has
become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are
all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Now those verses give some folks fits. Because there are at least two ways
that you could understand what Paul is getting at there. Is Paul, when he
is using that kind of language, “before faith came,” talking about the
experience of the individual believer before and after regeneration, or is
he talking about eras of redemptive history before Christ and after Christ,
calling the era prior to Christ, before faith came, the time of the Law, and
the era after Christ, now that faith has come? My guess, is that he is
doing a little bit of a double entendre here. But again, his statement,
“before faith came, and now that faith has come,” cannot be taken as an
absolute contrast. It is a relative contrast in absolute terms. How do you
know that? Because who is Paul’s example of faith? Abraham. And he
was kicking around a few years before Jesus came. So, again, you can’t
come up with airtight categories here, excluding the operation of the
Spirit in faith, under the Old Covenant, in contrast to the New Covenant.
And so again, Paul’s contrasts here, are relative, and they are designed in
particular to isolate that element of the Law of God in the days of Moses,
especially the ceremonial code, which was in and of itself designed to
point forward to a real work that was going to accomplish atonement and
which, because that work has already come, are now utterly worthless for
the believer, in both justification and sanctification. By the way, that
language is not mine, weak and worthless; that is the language of
Hebrews chapter 7. That is what the ceremonial law is now that faith has
come.

Now that is Paul’s polemic against those who would impose the
ceremonial code on believers. He says, “Look, you misunderstand the
whole function of the law.” And at that point, he is thinking in broad
categories about the law, not simply ceremonial, but the law as a whole.
But when he isolates and begins to speak to them about the function of
the Law as a tutor, he has in mind both those distinctive elements of the
Law: the moral law and the ceremonial law. And he thinks of the moral
law not only as a tutor, or as the slave who leads us to the school teacher;
he thinks of the moral law not only as the one who leads us to Christ,
because in the law, we see our own need for the teacher, Jesus, but he
sees the ceremonial code as the tutor that leads us to the reality, the one
who is really going to teach us the atonement. The one who is really
going to accomplish atonement for us.

Now we are going to come back to that passage when we get into our New
Covenant section, but I wanted to look at them because those are
passages which are often appealed to by some, in order to prove a radical
dichotomy in the Covenant of Grace, or actually to say that there is not a
unified Covenant of Grace from Old Testament to New Testament, but in
fact, they are distinctive dispensations. And it is patently clear that that is
exactly opposite from what Paul is arguing. Paul is arguing there is no
discontinuity between Abraham and Moses. What Moses established did
not undercut what God had already established under Abraham. That is
the whole logic of his argument, in Galatians 3. So this very passage
which is often appealed to, to say to Reformed Christians, “See you have
got it all wrong, because you are trying to bring this Law thing back in
and you are just like the Galatians.” You would have to say, “Well, my
friend, you have got it upside down. You have done a 180 degree
interpretation of Paul’s logic. The flow of his logic doesn’t make sense, if
what you say is true about the relationship between Law and Gospel.”

So, what is the role for the Mosaic Covenant today?

First of all, the moral law continues to be the perfect standard of
obedience in the Covenant of Grace. This is stressed in numerous ways in
the New Covenant. Think of the shear amount of law material found in
the New Testament, especially in the Epistles. A lion’s share of the
Epistles fall in the category of moral exhortation: live this way, obey these
things, do these things. And usually it comes in the form of an exposition
of an Old Testament principle applied to New Covenant believers. The
overwhelming amount of law material in the New Testament is an
argument that the New Testament authors themselves did not see a
radical dichotomy between the standard of the law in the Old Covenant
and the standard of the Law in the New Covenant. The moral law is the
same. Why? Because God is the same.

And that is remarkable, because you know how when you are in an
argument? You tend to overstate and you tend to contort what the other
person is saying. And in this conflict with Judaizers and Legalists, the
New Covenant is very carefully protecting the place of law in the
believer’s life. And that is truly remarkable. That to me is one of the
great marks of the inspiration of the New Testament. The best of men
have overstated themselves in that argument over the 2000 year period
of Christian history, and yet the New Testament is incredibly careful with
how it states that particular relationship.

Furthermore, Paul stresses in passages like Ephesians 2, Romans 5, and

Romans 8, that we were redeemed to be righteous. And how does he
define righteousness? He defines it in accordance to the character of God
and in terms of the law of God - see Romans 7. The law of God, Paul
says, is holy, it is spiritual. These are Pauline descriptions of the law.
Those are not Pharisaical descriptions of the law. Those are Paul’s
description of the law. The law is holy, and righteous.

And, in the New Testament, our Lord Jesus stresses that blessing comes
from obedience. Put in Old Testament terms, blessing comes from law
keeping. And the other side of that is that the New Testament continues
to stress that chastening to those who violate God’s law.

And finally, Jesus and Paul stress that our judgment will be by works. In
all these ways, we see that the moral law of the Mosaic era continues to be
relevant to believers. Paul stresses that blessing comes from keeping the
law. Look at Ephesians 6:2. You remember his emphasis? This is the
only commandment with a promise. Obedience to parents yields living
long in the land of your fathers. Jesus stresses that blessing comes from
obedience. In Matthew 5:17-19, He who teaches and keeps all the law, he
will be blessed, he will be considered great in the kingdom. In Matthew 7
verses 24-27, the culmination of the Sermon on the Mount, what is Jesus’
point? It was the man who acted upon the demands, the claims of Christ,
building his house on the rock, he was the one whose house stood up
under the waves. He didn’t just hear the words and think that they were
really nice, and was deeply moved by them; he built his house on the
rock. The blessing comes from obedience. Hebrews 12:6 stresses that
chastening will be done to those who violate God’s law. I Corinthians 11
verses 30-32 teaches the same thing, in the context of the Lord’s Supper
of all things. When Paul said, “and many of you are asleep,” he didn’t
mean they were taking a long nap. Chastening comes from taking the
Lord’s Supper in a flippant way and not discerning the body. That is not
manifesting a true connection, appreciation for a mutual love for those in
the body. So there is blessing and cursing in the New Covenant, which
again shows the continuing function of the law. And as we said,
Christians under the New Covenant will be judged by works. Matthew 25
verses 31-33, II Corinthians 5:10,

Now friends this reminds us why it is so important for us to understand

justification, sanctification, and the relationship between law and gospel.
Because if you don’t understand those things, you cannot preach the
Gospel that Paul preached. You have to preach a justification that has
absolutely nothing to do with personal obedience and law keeping, while
at the same time, stressing that there is no such thing as a justification
without a corresponding sanctification.

And so you have to stress the freeness of grace and justification, while
simultaneously stressing that grace reigns in righteousness, to borrow
Paul’s words from the end of chapter 5 of the book of Romans,
remembering that the purpose of grace in the life of believers is not fire
insurance, but it is that we would be transformed into the image of the
Son, and restored to the fullness of our humanity. And so Lordship, you
see, is not peripheral to Christian experience; it is the ultimate expression
of Christian experience. It is the purpose that God is working for us. And
so faith and works must be present in the believer’s life. James’ words, in
James chapter 2 are not antiPauline, they are quintessentially Pauline.
Paul couldn’t have said it better himself. In fact, he did on a few
occasions, say precisely what James says in James chapter 2.

You have to understand those things as we proclaim the Gospel. And it

you know this is one of the things that we just need to rehearse, this is
one that you are called upon to meditate upon over and over, and over
and over. And I will confess, I am slow, these things didn’t come together
for me, until I had been working them through for seven years in the
context of study in seminary, and in postgraduate training. You have got
to commit yourself to reflection and meditation, so you can preach a
Gospel of grace which is absolutely free. A justification that has nothing
to do whatsoever with me, with what I have done, but at that same time,
to stress that grace always reigns in righteousness and that he who has
faith has works, and that is a Pauline Gospel.

Now this emphasis is seen elsewhere in the New Testament call to

obedience. The Christian life, according to the New Testament, is
characterized by joyful obedience. We see it in John 14:15, in Jesus’ word
to His disciples. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” “Love to
God,” F.F. Bruce says, “love to God and obedience to God are so
completely involved in each other, that anyone of them implies the other
two.” You can’t love God without obeying Him. And that is exactly what
James is poking at. He is saying, “Well, you say you love God, but you
don’t obey Him? Well, I don’t believe you love Him.” And that is just
what John says in I John. “You hate your brother. Well, God said, ‘don’t
hate your brother.’” ‘In fact God said, ‘love your brother.’ So, you don’t
love God. They go together.”

Eric Alexander puts it this way. “The evidence of knowing God is obeying
God. So the Christian life is characterized by joyful obedience.” This is
not against the doctrine of grace. Listen to the words of Martin Luther,
who wrote that radical treatise on Galatians, and who himself has been
charged with nigh unto half a millennium, by the Roman Catholic Church
as being the most wicked antinomian to ever walk the planet, “I would
rather obey God than work miracles.” That is not the statement of an
antinomian. “I would rather obey God than work miracles.” Now is that
antiGospel? No. Obedience to God in the context of grace is, in fact, the
ground of freedom because when we recognize it is God we obey, we are
freed from the doctrines and opinions and commandments of men.

What is the most frustrating thing in life? To be judged by people on

arbitrary standards that you have never seen written down anywhere.
Where does it say that I have to wear my hair like that? Where does it say
that I have to wear that kind of clothes to be accepted in your group?
Where does it say that I have to drive that kind of car, live in that
particular part of town? You aren’t their slave, they aren’t your master.
God is your master. You are freed from the doctrines, opinions, and
commandments of men. His law is the only standard by which you will
be judged, because you are freed from the arbitrary and manmade
standards of all your would be lords. And that is why even Seneca, the
great Latin stoic, said to obey God is perfect liberty. Listen to Thomas
Vincent, “God is the only Lord of the conscious, and though we are to
obey magistrates and parents and masters, yet we are chiefly to do this
because God requires us to do so. And if they command us to do
anything which God does forbid, we are to refuse obedience, choosing to
obey God rather than any man in this world.” The charter of Christian
freedom is that once we have appropriated the grace of Christ, the law
becomes not a burdensome code that condemns us, but it becomes our
charter of Christian freedom as the Gospel of Grace and the cross of
Christ transforms it. It ceases to be our enemy. It is no longer designed
to drive us in our sin to Christ, though it still performs that function. It is
the mirror, the royal law, that we see our sin in that continues sends us
back to Christ.

As Christians, we must learn how the law functions because it has

multiple functions. The New Testament makes it very clear. That God’s
revealed will as set forth in His word, and in His law, is the pattern of
obedience which He calls us to follow. The revealed will of God is found
in the Scriptures where the whole duty of man to God is made known,
said Thomas Vincent. As we close, just listen to these words of the New
Testament,

John 14:15. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”

John 14:21. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is

who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I
will love him, and will disclose Myself to him."

Galatians 3:10. “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a
curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT
ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO
PERFORM THEM."

Ephesians 4:1. “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk
in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,”

Ephesians 4:17. “This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord,
that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of
their mind,”

Ephesians 6:6. “not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves

of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.”

You couldn’t find a better description of the Christian ethic.

Phillipians 2:12. “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out
your salvation with fear and trembling;”

I Timothy 6:14. “that you keep the commandment without stain or

reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,”

I Timothy 6:18. “Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be

generous and ready to share,”

Hebrews 13:16. “And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with
such sacrifices God is pleased.”

James 1:22. “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely
hearers who delude themselves.”

The New Testament ethic does not dispense with the glorious core of the
moral law. It places it in the framework of grace and calls on the believer
to sing with David, how I love Thy law, O Lord. Let’s pray.

 The Blood of the Covenant
Exodus 24:1-11
The Glory Blood of the Covenant

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to Exodus 24.
During the summer on Wednesday evenings, we worked through the
Book of the Covenant. Now, keep your finger at Exodus 24, and turn back
to Exodus 20, and look at verse 22. The Book of the Covenant begins in
that verse. The Book of the Covenant contains the applications and
illustrations of how the Ten Commandments apply to the daily life of
Israel as individuals and as a community. It runs all the way from Exodus
20:22 to Exodus 23:33. In other words, it covers all of Exodus 21, 22, and
23, and that part of Exodus chapter 20 which is immediately after the
Ten Commandments. The Ten Words give the fundamental legal
principles for Israel's society, their community, and the Book of the
Covenant applies that to the community life in specific situations. And we
said as we studied through that Book of the Covenant on several different
occasions, that it teaches us at least three general lessons.

It teaches us that we're all accountable to God all the time in every aspect
of our life; it teaches us that we are to be concerned with the welfare of
our neighbor. We were struck over and over again how the Book of the
Covenant asks us to be our brother's keeper, to be that good neighbor to
that neighbor in need and in distress, and to act righteously, not just in
our private relationship with God, but in our public relationship with our
neighbor. In other words, it stressed that if you really love God you will
love your neighbor.

And that leads to the other great theme we saw stressed and it's simply
this: holiness is more than personal piety; it's about public morality. It's
about the way we relate in the various relationships of life that God has
brought. And the subjects covered in the covenant code were extremely
varied. I won't review them tonight, but there are at least 22 different
applications of God's law in the Ten Commandments found in the Book of
the Covenant. Everything from the death penalty to proportionate
penalties to laws about the Sabbath Day–all manner of applications and
though those applications are varied, they’re not comprehensive. It's clear
that this couldn't function as the complete civil code of a society though it
gives wonderful applications of the principles of the Ten Commandments
for Israel's society. Israel was clearly meant to draw deductions and
conclusions from the illustrations and descriptions found in the Book of
the Covenant.

Tonight we enter into a new section of the Book of Exodus. In the passage
that we start tonight, the focus of the Book of Exodus from now to the
very end will be on the worship of God. Almost half of the book focused
on the worship of God. We will begin tonight looking at this great
covenant confirmation ceremony recorded in Exodus chapter 24. And
you’re going to see several things emphasized in the verses that we look at
tonight.

For instance, in verses one and two, you’re going to see the holiness of
God emphasized by the fact that only Moses was allowed to approach
Him. Though some of the leaders of Israel are called to draw near, only
Moses goes up to the top of the mountain to commune with God. It
speaks something about the holiness of God, doesn't it.

Secondly, in verses three and four, you’re going to see the significance of
the law highlighted for Israel. Moses receives the law from God; he
recounts the law to the people and he will then write it down because the
law is so central to this covenant relationship which God is establishing
with His people.

In verse three we will also see that Israel's understanding of God's grace
in the Exodus placed a requirement on them to be holy, and that's why
they say, “Lord, all that You have commanded, we will do.” They
understood that grace constrains them to obey. Then if you look at verse
4-8, you’ll find that the binding fellowship, the obligation of the covenant
as well as the people's gratitude to God is expressed in these offerings,
especially the peace offering that is mentioned in this passage.

Fifth, if you look at verse 8, you’ll see that Moses’ words of institution
indicate that the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and on the people
serve as a sacrament, that is, as an outward sign of an inward spiritual
reality. There's nothing superstitious going on here. That is made clear by
the fact that Moses doesn't sprinkle the twelve stones. There's nothing
superstitious or magic going on here; Moses sprinkles the people with the
blood. This is not superstition, its symbolism. It's and outward sign of an
inward spirituality of this relationship which has been established
between God and His people. But that is not all for when you look at
verses 9-11, we have a visible manifestation of God–a theophany–a
manifestation of God. It happens from time to time in the Old Testament,
the burning bush. And here, as Moses and the leaders of Israel go up the
mountain, we are told astonishingly that they see God. It's a rich passage;
let's study it together to God's glory.

“Then He said to Moses, Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab
and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a
distance. "Moses alone, however, shall come near to the LORD, but they
shall not come near, nor shall the people come up with him." Then Moses
came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the
words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" Moses wrote down all the
words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an
altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of
Israel.
He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings
and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. Moses took
half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he
sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it
in the hearing of the people; and they said, " All that the LORD has
spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!" So Moses took the blood and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant,
which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel,and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there
appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He
did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and
they saw God, and they ate and drank.”
Amen. This is God's word, may He add His blessing to it. Let us pray.

Our Lord, teach us from Your holy Scriptures, of Yourself and of the
glory of that sacrifice which substituted for us and for our sins, that
quenched Your judgment and condemnation against us, and brought us
into everlasting fellowship with You. This we ask in Jesus' name, Amen.

Our theme in this section of Exodus has been, Glorifying God, because
Exodus 24-40 is all about glorifying God. It's all about worship. And
Exodus 24 itself is about worshiping God by His grace and promise. The
only reason that Israel is here at Mt. Sinai, worshiping the living God, is
because of His grace and promise, so beautifully set forth in this covenant
which is described here. There are several things we need to learn from
this passage. In verses 1-4, you will see the covenant recounted,
embraced, and written down or inscripturated. And in these four verses,
we learn two very important things. First, we learn about the principle of
representation. If you want to worship God, you need a representative,
because you’re sinful, you need someone to stand in between. These four
verses tell us about the principle of representation, and about the
centrality of the word of God in His covenant relationship with His
people.

I. The principle of representation and the centrality of the

word in the covenant at Sinai.
In verse 1 the representatives of Israel are called upon to come near to
Mt. Sinai and worship. Now, there's a story behind that, and for those
who have forgotten, let me refresh your memories. In exodus 19:17, 21
and 24, God will meet with Israel. The children of Israel had been waiting
430 years for this. They've been making their way across the wilderness
for this, and now the time and come and God, because of the zeal and
curiosity of the Israelites, has to say to Moses, “Don't let the people touch
the mountain, because if they do, I’ll strike out against them in My wrath
because of My holiness.” And He has to warn them repeatedly not to let
the children of Israel break through to the mountain. You get the picture
that the children of Israel are huddled in a mass around the mountain,
just at the very edges, as close as they could possibly get. It's like someone
at a great football game, and you didn't have tickets and you’re at the
gates crowding in as close as you can get to try and see what's happening
on the field. And this is how the children of Israel are, they’re crowding.

But then, a big change. Look at Exodus 20:18, 21. The next time you hear
from Moses about the location of the people of God, where are they?
They’re not at the mountain. What happened? God spoke, they ran.
Remember their reaction? God finally speaks to them in His own voice,
and what do the children of Israel say? “Uh Moses, one small request.
Would you please never have Him speak to us again.” It terrified them.
They were in awe. They were struck with fear. They fled. So now Moses
now being asked to bring the children of Israel back, because they’re far
away, but they’re not to touch the mountain. Only the representatives,
Nadab and Abihu and Aaron, the priestly class hasn't been set apart yet,
but they represent that group that will one day be the priestly class of
Israel. And isn't it interesting that Nadab and Abihu, who had the
privilege of going up the mountain of the Lord, will themselves violate the
law of God and be judged by it. And the elders of Israel, 70 of them, the
ruling elders of Israel, are called up the mountain, to represent those who
lead and guide and shepherd and rule the people of God. And Moses the
mediator.

But in verse 2, we see that the mediator alone is allowed to go all the way
up the mountain to meet with God. The elders and Nadab and Abihu and
their father, Aaron, they go up part of the way. But Moses alone draws
near to God. Why? He is the representative. He's the singular
representative for Israel, for Moses to go up to meet with God is for Israel
to go up to meet with God, because he's the mediator. You see, God is
teaching us something. In one man, all of Israel is represented. Moses.
God had promised to commune with His people, and by Moses alone
coming up the mountain, the people of God are communing with God,
because he is the representative.

In verse 3, Moses comes down after worship and recounts to the people
God's words. He tells them all of the things that God Himself had not told
them with His own voice. God spoke the Ten Words. They were terrified.
They begged for Moses to be the one to speak the rest of the words of God
to them, so God told Moses those words, Exodus 20:22-23:33, so Moses
recounts those words to them. Moses speaks out loud all the words of the
book of the covenant that God had given to him. And what do they say?
Verse 3, “All the words that God has spoken we will do.” This is not the
first time that they have confirmed their willingness to enter into a
covenant with God. Back in Exodus 19:8, when they first got to the
mountain the children of Israel say, “All that the Lord has spoken we will
do.” So now, after having heard God speak the Ten Commandments,
having heard Moses speak the book of the covenant which elaborated
upon the Ten Commandments, they say again, “Yes, we are ready to enter
into this covenant relationship. Everything that the Lord has spoken we
will do.”

And then, verse 4, what happens? Moses writes down the word of God.
Friends, you are beholding in Exodus 20-24, the beginning of the
inscripturation of the canon of Scripture. Notice how it begins. It begins
with the “finger of God Himself writing down the Ten Commandments,
and then it continues with Moses, under the divine inspiration of God
Almighty writing down the words that He has spoken into his ear. This is
the beginning of the canon of Scripture.

From those four verses alone we learn two glorious principles. We cannot
worship God without a mediator because we are sinners. Like the
children of Israel, we can't touch that mountain. We need a mediator, a
mediator counted as holy in the sight of God, and Moses serves as the
peoples’ mediator in this place. The fact that the people themselves
cannot come in behind the curtain, they cannot ascend the mountain,
they cannot go up with God, shows the distance and it also shows the
imperfection of that mediatorial relationship. But it does teach us clearly
that you cannot worship God without a mediator because of sin. This
passage also teaches that you cannot worship God without honoring and
obeying His word, because what is right smack dab square at the center of
this relationship? The word of God. The Ten Words, the ordinances, the
application of the Ten Words, right at the heart of the relationship. You
cannot worship God without honoring and obeying His words. No
wonder Jesus said, “I would have you be hearers and doers of the word.”
So that's the first thing we learn from this passage, the principle of
representation and the centrality of the word of God in this covenant that
God is making at Mt. Sinai.

II. The principle of vicarious sacrifice and duty from gratitude

in the covenant at Sinai.
But there's more. In the rest of verse 4 through verse 8, here we see the
reading, the embracing, and the sealing of the covenant. In verses 1-4, we
saw the recounting, embracing and writing down of the covenant. Here,
we see the reading, embracing, and sealing of the covenant. Moses gets
up early and has an altar built. Remember, God has already told him how
to build the altar. It's right in the end of Exodus 20. It must be uncut
stone, not hewn. It can't be high which would expose the nakedness of the
priests. No artifice of man's hand is to defile it. Moses makes this altar
according to the stipulations of Exodus 20, and sets up 12 pillars, and
we're told in verse 4 that the pillars represent the tribes of Israel. It's a
representation of the whole people of God. The altar itself will represent
the presence of God. The stones will represent the people of Israel.

And then in verse 5, young men are sent for. There are no priests yet, so
these young men are needed to help with the offerings. Both burnt and
peace offering are offered. The burnt offerings are burned completely.
They’re burned to cinders. The peace offerings are slaughtered. Half the
blood is poured in the basin, and half in poured on the altar. Then, later,
the meat from the peace offerings will provide food for a feast, a
fellowship feast with God.

Notice in verse 6 and 7, half of the blood is sprinkled on the altar. The
altar would have been covered with blood. And then in this very context,
after pouring the blood out on the altar, Moses reads the book of the
covenant, and now, for the third time, the children of Israel say, “We will
do this. We will obey. We will embrace this covenant.”

Then, in verse 8, this amazing scene. Moses takes the hyssop branch and
dips it in the blood and begins slinging it out on the people of God until
the blood has been spread on the people of God, symbolically indicating
that they have been brought into a blood relationship and life and death
commitment with the God of Israel.

What do we learn from this passage? We learn, first, the principle of

vicarious sacrifice. Those animals symbolized the sacrifice that is
necessary to establish the relationship between God and Israel. You say,
“How do I know that?” I’ll tell you later, but let me just say, I know it
because the book of Hebrews tells me and I know it because Jesus tells it
to me.

That slaughter of the animals represents the principle of vicarious

sacrifice, that we cannot come into fellowship with Go apart from a
sacrifice on our behalf, because we're sinful and we're in need of
atonement.

Secondly, we learn that duty flows from gratitude in the covenant of

grace. The children of Israel, when they say, “All that the Lord has said,
we will do,” they do it with gratitude in their hearts because they’re here
only due to the grace of God. God hasn't said, “If you’ll do all these things,
I’ll bring you out of Egypt.” Where are they standing? They’re standing in
the wilderness of the Sinai. How did they get there? Through the Red Sea,
through the plagues, through the redemptive grace of God. They’re not
there except by the grace of God, so their obedience is in response to the
grace of God. It's not so that God will show them grace, but because God
has shown them grace. We learn that right here, in verse 4 through 8.

III. The covenant is both the means and the end of God's saving
design-binding relationship and fellowship.
But that's not all. We learn a third thing in verses 9-11, where the
presence of God and communion with God are beautifully set forth. We
learn that the covenant is both the means and the end of God's saving
plan. In verse 9, all the representatives of Israel, every class of leadership,
elders, priests, Moses, go up the mountain. But something astonishing
happens. Something that every good child of Abraham knew could not
happen without big trouble. They see God. They see a manifestation of
God. Even in the next verse you find out that the expectation is that when
a sinful human sees the awesome, the holy, the mighty God, it means
death. It means certain death. But God in His mercy spares them.

Something very interesting happens. They see this manifestation of God

and what happens? There is absolutely no description of God given. The
description in Exodus 24:10 is from the feet down. Now, if someone gives
a description of you from the feet down, not just from the feet down, but
from the bottom of the feet down, there's not a whole lot to go on. What's
the point of the passage? What are the feet resting on? What does Moses
say that it looks like the feet are resting on? I know about the blue
sapphirey-looking pavement stuff, the lapis lazuli, but what does it say
that looks like? It looks like the sky. God is not part of the earth. God is
not conjoined with the earth. God is not mother-earth. God rules over
heaven and earth. He makes the earth His footstool, He's the sovereign
God of heaven and earth. You’re seeing the Creator-creature distinction
pictured in the very manifestation of God that these, the leaders of Israel,
see. He's not like us; He's above us; He's the Creator that brought
everything into being, but He's not part of it, or under it, or surrounded
by it. He's over it all. He's God over all, maker of heaven and earth.

God spares them, and in verse 11 we're told that they sit down and they
eat a meal with God. The covenant is sealed with a meal, because to be
brought into the covenant is to be brought into the family of God and to
slide your knees up under the table of God, to sit down at His table as His
children. And that meal that they eat symbolizes the sweetness of union
and communion, the enjoyment of the presence of God which the people
of God enjoy because of the covenant. You see, the covenant is a
relationship that's for a relationship. It's a special relationship designed
to save us out of the world and into His family, to save us from our sins
into holiness so that we can be in an eternal relationship with Him
forever. And it's set forth right here in verses 9-11.

IV. Our Lord Himself connects and explains His saving work
on the cross with Moses’ words in Exodus 24:8.
But there's one last thing. Go back to verse 8. Jesus fulfills the blood of
this covenant. Our Lord Jesus Himself connects and explains His saving
work on the cross by using Moses’ words in Exodus 24:8. When Moses
confirms that God has brought His people into a saving, covenant
relationship, in Exodus 24:8, he says, “Behold,” as he sprinkles this blood
on the people, “this is the blood of the covenant. This is the blood that
seals the covenant. This is the blood that shows that you have been
brought into covenant relationship with God. This is the blood that spares
your judgment. This is the blood that unites you with the family of God.
And on the night that Jesus was betrayed, on the night in which He stood
in that upper room and the account of it is recorded in every one of the
gospels and in John, Jesus lifts up the cup to explain what He is about to
do for the disciples the next day. He uses this phrase, this language from
Exodus 24, and He says, “Behold, this is the blood of the covenant.” No,
He doesn't! He says, “Behold, My blood of the covenant.” Jesus is saying
that it is “My blood which is going to seal this covenant.”

You see, the author of Hebrews, in Hebrews 10:4, explains to you that
“the blood of bulls and goats cannot forgive sin and cannot cleanse the
conscience.” And Jesus is looking to His disciples, He's looking into their
eyes, and He knows that they know this passage, and He knows that they
know the significance of that blood bringing the people of God into
fellowship with God Himself, and He's saying, “My friends, that blood
couldn't bring you into fellowship with God, but My blood can and will.
Behold, My blood of the covenant.” And He adds in Mark, “which is shed
for the forgiveness of your sins.” You can't worship God without that
Mediator. There is no way into fellowship with the God who rules over
heaven and earth, but by the name and merits and blood of Jesus Christ.

Franklin Graham is exactly right. “That Name is all we've got.” That's the
one thing we've got. We've got one Mediator, and His blood, and His
blood alone, brings us into fellowship with the living God. He fulfills this
blood of the covenant, that we might worship and meet and commune
and fellowship and put our knees under the table of God forever.
Hallelujah, what a Savior. Let's pray.

O Lord, we cannot do justice to the awesomeness of what You displayed

at Sinai but which You completely transcended at Golgotha. But we
want to apprehend it and we want to glory in it, and we want to bathe
in it, and we want to be strengthened in it, and we want to be changed
by it, and we want to praise You for it. So grant us some inkling of a
comprehension of the greatness, the height and depth and breadth of the
love of God which is in Christ Jesus’ blood of the covenant. This we ask
in Jesus name, Amen.

Dispensationalism - A Reformed Evaluation

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to Romans
chapter 2. I want to point your attention to two verses. We are going to
begin today by making some observations about dispensationalism and
then we are going to give a rapid overview to the Davidic Covenant and
especially the establishment of the house of David in II Samuel 7. But
first I want you to concentrate on two verses here at the end of Romans 2,
2:28-29. Hear God’s Word.

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that

which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter;
and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy Word. May He add His blessing to
it. Let’s look to Him in prayer

“Father, we thank you again for the opportunity to meet together as we

study the history of theology, as we study your Word. We pray that
both of those exercises would refresh us with the truth as well as brace
us against error. And we pray that you would help us to embed the
truth of your word in such a way as to live it out and to be competent to
proclaim it to others for the sake of Christ and for His glory. We ask it
in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

You will see the logic of my reading that passage in a few moments as we
discuss our topic today. I want to make a few comments to you today
about the Theology of Dispensationalism. Those of you who have been
reading Vern Poythress’ book, Understanding Dispensationalists,
have already gotten some idea of the intricacies of the dispensational
system and why dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are so
diametrically opposed. I want to make a few historical comments about
dispensationalism and then I want to make a few theological comments
about dispensationalism with regard to different types of
dispensationalism, and then I want to draw some contrasts between
Covenant Theology and the more classic forms of dispensationalism. Let
me start off with just some, some basic historical, theological comments.

A Brief Background to Dispensationalism

 The dispensational system of theology, if we are honest, is actually a
Nineteenth Century phenomenon. Now I don’t want to get into an
argument about these things. I know many good dispensationalists like
to trace elements of dispensational teaching and belief way back into the
history of the church. But as a historical theologian, and that is what I am
by profession, I can pretty confidentially tell you that the system of
dispensational theology is a Nineteenth Century phenomenon in the
history of the church. It is particularly associated with John Nelson
Darby and the Plymouth Brethren movement in Britain in the Nineteenth
Century, and in America, with the name C.I. Scoffield, Cyrus Ingersoll
Scoffield.

The dispensational movement created its own seminary in Dallas. And

has for many years had control of a very theological journal, called,
Bibliotheca Sacra, that has been sort of the official journal for
dispensationalism. And many of you are aware of Dallas Seminary and of
Bib Sac and of folks in the Bible Church movement, who would be very
much indebted to the dispensationalist tradition.

Dispensationalism is not necessary committed in and of itself, for or

against Calvinism and Arminianism. Earlier this century, for instance,
you would have found many people who would have identified
themselves as Calvinists and dispensationalists. And you would have
found some who would have held basically to an Arminian theological
framework been dispensationalist. On my best information, Dallas today
would officially have sort of an ambiguous approach towards Calvinism.
In other words, there wouldn’t be an out and out denial of Calvinism. Yet
in fact, I am told that there is still a great deal of fear and discomfort with
Calvinism at Dallas Theological Seminary. There are reasons for that
which I won’t go into right now. They will become clear later on.

Dispensationalists, of course, see their theological system to be in

opposition to Covenant Theology, or Federal Theology. All Federalists
have been Calvinists, but not all Dispensationalists have been Calvinists.
It is highly significant that a Dispensationalist may be either Calvinistic
or Arminian. This is not comparing apples and oranges. There are
several similarities between Dispensationalism and the Arminian
alternative to Covenant Theology. Many dispensationalists, however,
contend that their system is simply an alternative to Federalism; both
may be Calvinistic. But of course, rare is the dispensationalist who would
aver that the 16th and 17th century Calvinists were dispensational. Most
were Federalists.

Historically, they are separate systems. One began in the 16th century,
the other in the 19th Dispensationalists would see their theological
system to be more biblical than Covenant Theology, and they should be
seen as rivals. There is no one on either side of the
Dispensational/Covenant Theology Debate who would say, “Well, both of
these sides are half right, we just sort of need to combine the two of
them.” They are diametrically opposed at so many points that it would be
hopeless to attempt to come up with sort of a hybrid of dispensationalism
and Covenant Theology.

Differences - Eschatological
Now, the differences between Dipensationalism and Covenant
Theology are not mainly in the area of Eschatology. When we say
Eschatology, we are talking about usually the end time and especially the
time of the coming of Christ. Dispensationalists are premillenial, because
it is essential to their theological system, it is perhaps the fundamental
point of Dispensationalism that Israel and the Church are distinct, and
the Law-Gospel distinction must be preserved at all costs. That is the
very heart and core of classic dispensationalism. You should never, ever
mix up Law and Gospel, and you should never ever mix up Israel and the
Church

Classic dispensational, in addition to being premillenial, is also

pretribulational. Essentially, to say that one is premillinaial means that
one believes that Christ returns prior to the biblical millenium described
in the book of Revelation chapter 20 and according to dispensationalists
also mentioned elsewhere in the Scripture. To be pretribulational,
means that you believe in a rapture of the church that occurs prior to the
great Tribulation mentioned in the book of Revelation, and again hinted
at in other places in the Old and the New Testaments. So classic
dispensationalism has been both premillenial and it has been
pretribulational.
For those of you who are familiar with eschatological views, for those
who believe in a rapture, there are three views of a rapture. There is the
pre tribulational view. That is the belief that Christians are raptured, or
taken out of the world prior to the Great Tribulation.

There is the mid tribulational view. Believers are raptured out of the
world in the midst of the Great Tribulation. And there is the post
tribulational view. Which says that believers are raptured out of the
world, or Christians are raptured out of the world, after the Great
Tribulation. All classic dispensationalism, however, is premillenial and
pretribulational. And I will explain why that is in just a few moments.

On the other hand, most Covenant Theologians have been either post- or
amillenial. That is, they interpret the millennium described in Revelation
20 to be something that occurs prior to the return of Christ. Simply
defined, postmillenial means that the coming of Christ is post, that is
after the millenium, and amillenialism is just a sub category of post
millenialism. You can only have two views at the time of the millenium.
Christ is either coming before or after the millenium. Those are the only
two possible views. So, amillenialism is a sub category of
postmillenialism. All believers are either premillenialists or
postmillenialists.

Amillenialists tend to stress the heavenly character of that millennium.

They will, for instance, stress that the millenial reign is going on now, in
heaven. It is a spiritual millenium. Whereas postmillenialists tend to
stress a more earthly character to that millennium, and often times
project it as a golden age which is yet to be experienced, but which will
occur before the time of Christ. This is how many postmillenialists
viewed it last century, B.B. Warfield, being a great example of that. If
you want an example of Puritan postmillenialism, Iain Murray, The
Puritan Hope, describes the Puritans’ view of the millenium and it was
a post millenium view.

Now, there have been however, some who fall into the category of being
Covenant Theologians who are premillenial. Horatius Bonar, Robert
Murry McCheyne and some of the other great Scottish Calvinists last
century. However, their type of premillenialism differs from
dispensational premillenialism. For one thing, they were almost always
not pre tribulational in their view of their rapture teaching.

Differences – Literal Israel and the Church

Now, as we have said, eschatology is not the fundamental difference
between Covenant Theology and dispensationalism, but eschatology is
simply an implication of the fundamental difference. The fundamental
difference is actually seen in the difference between Israel and the
church.

Dispensationalism, and again, allow me to speak in generalities, if you

have read books like Progressive Dispensationalism, by Darrell L.
Bock, and Craig A. Blaising, who are professors at Dallas, or have been
professors at Dallas. You will know that Dispensationalists themselves
acknowledge that there are multiple systems of Dispensational Theology,
and Blaising and Bock come up with three basic categories of
dispensationalism. They say there is classic or historical
dispensationalism. There is revised, or modified dispensationalism. And
there is progressive dispensationalism. And each of those different
forms of dispensationalism have a slightly different twist on how Israel
and church relate.

Now, allow me to paint in broad brush, right now, not for the sake of
tarring and feathering someone, but at least trying to get us to the nub of
the issue. The fundamental difference between Covenant Theology and
Dispensationalism is this issue of Israel and the church.
Dispensationalism stresses the literal fulfillment of prophecy about Israel
and posits an essential difference between physical Israel and the
church. If you have Dipensational friends who are discussing with you
how you interpret Old Testament passages, and their fulfillment is seen
in the New Covenant, almost always they will tell you something like this,
“Well, I take the Bible literally and you are spiritualizing away these
passages.” Now what they really mean by that is they take the term
Israel, literally. Now, everybody has to acknowledge symbolic elements
in prophecy. Anybody who has read dispensational interpretations of the
book of Revelation will see that it is very clear that dispensationalists also
have a very symbolic approach to the meaning of Scripture, but what they
mean , whereas you think that these prophesies about Israel and Judah
in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the church and in the coming in of
the Gentiles into the church, we dispensationalists do not believe that the
Church is prophesied about in the Old Testament. And we believe that
the prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are to be
literally fulfilled in Israel in Judah in the New Covenant.

Now, again, allow me to overstate it like that for emphasis. Because as

you have already learned from Poythress, there are some
dispensationalists who would want to say it differently than that. But we
can’t say everything at once, and we have got to start somewhere. So let
me generalize like that. I don’t think that it is an unfair characterization.

Now, Covenant Theology on the other hand, sees the Church as the
fulfillment of Israel in New Covenant prophecy. Covenant Theology is
happy to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Church, especially in its post
Pentecost phase. But Covenant Theology sees all believers in essential
continuity. There are not two peoples of God. There is one people of
God.

Covenant Theologians would agree that the forms, and especially the
institutional forms of those people of God, was different under the Old
and under the New Covenant. The form of the people of God under the
Old Covenant was expressed primarily in Israel, which was an ethnic,
ecclesiastical and national community, whereas in the New Covenant, the
form of the people of God is, the institutional form of the people of God,
is the Church. And the Church in the New Testament is trans ethnic and
trans national and purely ecclesiastical as opposed to ecclesiastical and
civil. There is no question that there was a blending of matters civil and
ecclesiastical in the Old Covenant for the people of God, but hat is not
the case in the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism, however, contends that God has two peoples with

two destinies. And again, I am speaking of a classic form of
dispensationalism. The two peoples of God, Israel and the Church, have
two separate destinies. They see Israel, with the earthly millennial reign
of David in the land of Israel restored to its Davidic and Solomonic
boundaries. For the Church, there is heaven. So, for the
dispensationalist, there are two peoples and two separate destinies,
whereas Covenant Theology going back to its concept of the Church and
God’s sovereign election from before the Creation, strenuously argues
that there is only one people of God in all ages and there is only one
destiny for all the people of God.

Now, you are beginning to see why I read Paul’s words in Romans 2:28-
29, because Paul obviously had a great concern to address precisely these
kinds of issues. And in that passage, Paul makes it clear that not all Israel
is Israel. Okay. So he makes it clear that Israel was from the very
beginning a spiritual entity, even though there was an external aspect to
Israel; that circumcision was not simply a matter of an outward form and
sign, but that there was an inward spiritual reality which was necessary
for fellowship with God.

And that is one of the disputed points between the Covenant Theology
perspective and the Dispensationsalists. The Covenant Theologian wants
us to understand that Israel from the very beginning, had within her
bounds, both the elect and the reprobate. And that God’s promises were
not made, as it were, as a shell simply to the external Israel, but to those
who had indeed embraced and appropriated the promises of the
Covenant with Abraham. God’s plan is the same in the New Covenant as
it was in the Old. And that is a disputed point between Covenant
Theology and Dispensationalism.

Differences – Only One Plan From Eternity for All of God’s

People
Probably the greatest problem then, between Dispensationalism and
Covenant Theology concerns God’s saving purposes in the Old
Testament. Some of the older Dispensationalists used to actually even
argue that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and by faith in
the New Testament. Now, Poythress is very careful to note that most
Dispensationalists today don’t argue that particular point of view. But
that was a very common point of view in some of the older Dispensational
writings. And of course, Covenant Theologians point out that that would
contradict the essential Reformation doctrine of sola gratia, or salvation
by grace alone, if that were the case. Salvation is not only now, by grace
alone, the Reformers argued, it has always been by grace alone since the
Fall.
Now, more mainstream dispensationalism has suggested that Old
Testament believers were not saved by works, but by faith, but they differ
from Covenant Theologians in their description of the nature of that
faith. Some modern dispensationalists generally argue that the saving
faith of the Old Testament was substantially and materially different from
the saving faith of the New Testament. They tend to argue that sinners in
the Old Testament were not justified by faith in the Gospel of the Messiah
as sin-bearer (Christ crucified), but rather their faith was in promises that
were peculiar to their individual era in redemptive history. So they may
have received occasional messianic prophecy, but that was not essential
to their saving faith, per se.

Now, this isn’t just out of accord with Covenant Theology, but
this is the area where dispensationalism has been most out of
accord with Protestant theology. This is out of accord with all
Calvinism, all Lutheranism, and even mainstream Anabaptist thought at
the Reformation, who all taught that Old Testament believers were
justified by faith in the coming Messiah as sin-bearer. These Old
Testament believers all heard the Gospel, the Reformers argued. How?
Through the prophecies and types. Therefore, the essential content of
their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the NT. So
though the New Covenant believer may have a firmer grasp on the
Gospel, because the events of the Gospel are now retrospective for the
New Covenant, yet the Gospel was set forth in shadows and in types to
the Old Covenant believer. So that justifying faith in the Old Testament
was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His
coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work
of Christ, the Messiah. That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view
about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to
take issue with it.

So, the historic Protestant view is that the essential content of faith has
been materially the same in all ages. Historical Protestant teaching is
that no one has ever been justified except by faith in Christ crucified.
That is the essence of the Reformation doctrine of sola fide, or salvation
by faith alone. And so when classic forms of Dispensationalism disagree
with that point, they are not just disagreeing with Covenant Theology,
they are also disagreeing with Protestantism as a whole. And in that
light, you see why it is impossible to harmonize the two systems. That
fundamental difference is at the core. Calvinism has always held that the
saints in both Old and in New Testament are all in Christ. They are part
of the body of Christ, part of the bride of Christ, because of God’s
election.

Major distinctions between Covenant Theology and

Dispensationalism
Now, let’s look then systematically at some differences between
dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. And if you can picture two
columns, with Dispensationalism on one side and Covenant Theology on
the other side. What I am going to try and do is give you a contrast
between classic Dispensationalism and classic Covenant Theology. And
again, I do it, having already told you that you will find variations on
these views in Dispensationalism and you may even find some variation
on some of these views by Covenant Theologians, but I am trying to
generalize in order to help you see the distinction. Many times I will have
people say, “I have a hard time explaining the differences between
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.” I am giving these to help
you understand.

First of all, Dispensationalists may be an Arminian or four point

Calvinists, but Dispensationalists are almost never five point Calvinists.
The point that they drop out, of course, is limited atonement. Covenant
Theologians are, of course Calvinists by definition, of the five point
variety. Covenant Theology, if it enforces anything, it enforces the
Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement. If Covenant Theology does
anything, it sets in context a full orbed Calvinist doctrine of Particular
Redemption.

Secondly, Dispensationalists speak in terms of a literal interpretation of

the Bible. This is a major rhetorical thing that you hear in discussion
with Dispensationalist friends. “We interpret the Bible literally.” Of
course, the implication being that you don’t. We interpret the Bible
literally, you don’t. You do something else to it. Whereas Covenant
Theologians would argue, ‘We interpret the Bible literally, but, we believe
that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.” We believe that
the New Testament is the hermanutical manual for the Old Testament.
And Dispensationalists are suspicious of that. When you say that the
New Testament must interpret the Old Testament, Dispensationalists get
a little bit edgy, because they feel you are about to spiritualize something
that the Old Testament has said for them very clearly. So that is a
fundamental difference. The Covenant Theologian believes the New
Testament has the final word as the meaning of that passage, whereas
the Dispensationalists tends to want to interpret the Old Testament and
then go to the New Testament and attempt to harmonize the particular
teaching of the New Testament with their previous interpretation of that
Old Testament passage, rather than allowing the New Testament
fundamental hermaneutical control.

In a classic example of this, Scoffield himself tells you that the most
important passage in the Bible, from a Dispensational perspective is
Amos chapter 9. Well, of course, Amos chapter 9 is interpreted in Acts
chapter 15, but the interpretation of Amos chapter 9, that is given in Acts
chapter 15 is diametrically opposed to the central principle of
Dispensationalism. So how does the Dispensationalist deal with that?
Well, he gives you his “literal interpretation” of Amos 9 and then simply
attempts to harmonize the teaching of Acts 15 with his previous literal
interpretation of Amos 9, whereas the Covenant Theologian says no,
“James tells you what Amos 9 means in Acts chapter 15, and therefore,
James’ interpretation must exercise all hermenutical control even when
you are doing your own original exegesis of Amos 9.” Because if James
says that is what Amos 9 means, and James is speaking under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts chapter 15, then that is
what Amos 9 means. So you see a fundamentally different approach to
Old Testament and New Testament interpretation.

Thirdly, Dispensationalists do not accept the Protestant idea of the

analogy of faith., that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” We find it in The
Westminster Confession, you will find it in all of the Protestant
confessions, and again, it gets back to that previous point that I was
making. Dispensationalists are dubious about that principle, because
they think that it is a way to spiritualize away literal prophecies in the Old
Testament. And, very frankly, if you have classic Dispensational friends,
they will suspect you as being just a little bit liberal, because you
spiritualize away literal prophecies. Even if you say you believe in
inerrancy, in authority, and inspiration, there will be a concern that you
are hermeneutically actually spiritualizing away the meaning of
Scripture. So they do not accept the analogy of faith.

Thirdly, on the Covenant Theology side, of course, we accept the analogy

of faith. Scripture interprets Scripture. And for the Covenant
Theologian, the New Covenant always has the final word as to the
meaning of the Old Covenant passage. It doesn’t mean that you don’t
start with the original context, and that you don’t bother yourself about
original intent, it just means that you recognize from a biblical theological
standpoint that later revelation, by definition, controls the final
Systematic Theological understanding of earlier revelation.

Fourth, for the Classic Dispensationalist, Israel always means the literal
physical descendants of Jacob. For the Covenant Theologian, Israel may
mean the literal physical descendants of Jacob, or it may mean spiritual
Israel which may be a subset of literal physical Israel, or it may actually
be larger than the subset of literal physical Israel. It could refer to
Gentiles as well. And that, is of course, is precisely the point that
Dispensationals must argue against

Fifth, Dispensationalists say that Galatians 6:16, where Paul uses the
phrase the Israel of God actually means physical Israel alone. However,
Covenant Theologians tend to argue that Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 is
a reference to spiritual Israel, paralleling it with Paul’s other statements,
for instance, in Galatians 3:29, Romans 2:20-28, which we read today,
Romans 9:6 and Philipians 3:3.

Sixthly, for Dispensationalists, God has two peoples with two separate
destinies: Israel with an earthly destiny, and the Church with a heavenly
destiny. The Covenant Theologian, God has always had only one people.
And though there is a sense in, however, views the church as a post
Pentecost phenomenon, understands there is also a sense in which the
Church is simply the people of God in all ages.

Seventh, for the Dispensationalists, the Church began at Pentecost, not

before. The people of God in the Old Testament were Israel, while the
people of God in the New Testament are the church. Seventh on the
Covenant Theology side, the church began with Adam, and of course,
reaches its fulfillment and culmination in the New Testament. Covenant
Theologians would point to the passages like Acts 7:38 where Stephen
speaks about what? He is speaking of the Church in the wilderness, when
he is actually speaking of Israel in the wilderness. .

Eighth, according to classic Dispensationalism, the Church was not

prophesied about in the Old Testament. There is no mention of the
church in the Old Testament. It was a mystery until the New Testament.
For Covenant Theologians, there are many Old Testament prophecies
that speak of the Church.

Ninth, all Old Testament and prophesies about Israel are for the literal
Israel, not for the Church. For the Dispensationalists, all Old Testament
prophecies are for Israel, for physical Israel or for the literal Israel, but
not for the church. For a Covenant Theologian, some Old Testament
prophecies pertain to literal Israel, and some pertain to a spiritual Israel.

Tenth. The Church. For the Dispensational side, the Church is a

parenthesis in God’s program for the ages. It is a temporary thing in the
flow of history. You have heard the phrase The Great Parenthesis, which
is used to the time when Messiah came and the Jews shockingly rejected
Him. This actually thwarted God’s plan, because the original plan was for
Messiah to come and set up a kingdom in Israel, but oops, the Jews
rejected Him. At that point the prophetic clock stopped and we entered
into the period of the Gentiles, the Great Parenthesis. That is a period
about which there was no prophecy in the Old Testament. At the end of
the period of the Great Parenthesis, the end of the time of the Gentiles, as
the Dispensationalists interpret that section in Romans chapter 11, the
Church is removed. That is the rapture. Then the prophetic clock starts
ticking again, and God’s dealings with Israel resume.

And by the way, that gives you a clue as to why a pre tribulation rapture is
so important for consistent classical Dispensationalism, because you have
to get rid of Gentile believers in the program of God, before you can get
on with the work that God is doing with literal physical earthly Israel.
And that is why mid-trib and post-trib Dispensationalism does not
work; because you are mixing up God’s dealings with the church and
through earthly Israel. So, pre tribulational rapturist functions in
Dispensationalist eschatology to remove the Church so that God’s
program for Israel can resume. You get the Church out of the way before
the tribulation, and then things start happening amongst the Jews. By
the way, this stuff is hot on the market again. The Tim LaHaye, Left
Behind novels are out, and I guarantee people in your congregations are
reading them. I don’t care where you are going, where you are attending,
I guarantee you there are some people there that are reading those novels
and they are really old, classic dispensationalism where some people
disappear one day and others are left behind.

On the other hand, for Covenant Theologians, the Church is the

culmination of God’s saving purposes for the ages. The Church is God’s
great masterpiece. It is the bride of Christ, the body of Christ.

Eleven. For Dispensationalism in its classic form, the main heir to

Abraham’s covenant was Isaac and literal Israel. The main heir to
Abraham’s covenant was Isaac and literal Israel. The Covenant
Theologian understands that the main heir to Abraham’s covenant was
Christ and spiritual Israel; and spiritual Israel is all who have faith in
Him.

Twelve. For Dispensationalism, of course, there is no covenant of

redemption within the Trinity. There is no intertrinitarian covenant. For
Covenant Theology, however, there is an intertrinitarian covenant which
effects election.

Thirteen. For Dispensationalists, there was no Covenant of Works with

Adam in the Garden. Whereas, Covenant Theology believes that God
made a conditional covenant of works with Adam as representative for all
his prosterity.

Fourteen. Furthermore, for Dispensationalism, there was no Covenant of

Grace with Adam. Whereas for Covenant Theology, God made a
Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people including Adam.
Fifteenth, for Dispensationalism, Israel was rash to accept the Covenant
at Mt. Sinai. You remember we read that Scoffield said, “That was a big
mistake. The children of Israel should have said, ‘We don’t want law, we
want grace.’” For Covenant Theology, Israel didn’t have a choice as to
whether to accept the covenant arrangement at Sinai. It wasn’t an
option.

Sixteenth. For Dispensationalism, the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is

for literal Israel. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 was for literal Israel
and is not fulfilled in Luke 22:20. For the Covenant Theologian, the New
Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is the same as the New Covenant spoken of by
the Lord Jesus in Luke 22. And both are for spiritual Israel.

Seventeen. For classic Dispensationalists, God’s program in history is

mainly through separate dispensations. And for Covenant Theologians,
God’s program in history is mainly through related and progressive
covenants. So naturally you would expect Dispensationalism to stress
what? Discontinuity in redemptive history, while Covenant Theology
stresses continuity, although that is not an absolute for either.

Eighteen. As we have mentioned before, some Dispensationalists have

argued that salvation was by works in the Old Testament, whereas
Covenant Theology argues that no man has been saved by works since the
fall. Salvation is by grace.

Also, nineteenth, many Dispensationalists teach that the nature of Old

Testament faith is different from the nature of New Testament faith. The
nature of Old Testament and New Testament faith is different. Whereas
Covenant Theologians argue that all those who have ever been saved,
have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin bearer, though that has
been progressively revealed with greater fullness as God unfolded His
plan of redemption.

Twentieth. Classic Dispensationalists will argue that the Old Testament

sacrifices were not recognized by the Old Testament saints as Gospel
types. They were only seen as such in retrospect. Whereas Covenant
Theologians will argue that the Old Testament believers believed in the
Gospel of the Messiah as sin bearer through the sacrifices their types and
prophecies.

Twenty-one. Dispensationalists argue that the Holy Spirit only indwells

New Testament believers; He did not indwell Old Testament believers.
And He will not indwell believers after the rapture. And of course, the
Covenant Theologian argues that there is no such thing as a believer who
is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Twenty-second. Dispensationalists teach that Jesus made an offer of the

kingdom to literal Israel, but Israel rejected it and so the kingdom was
postponed. Covenant Theologians teach that Jesus of course proclaimed
the kingdom of heaven, which from the outset was a spiritual kingdom,
and though it was rejected by many Jews, it was also accepted by many
Jews and Gentiles alike.

Twenty-third. Dispensationalists teach that Old Testament believers are

not in Christ. They are not part of the body or bride of Christ. That is the
Dispensational view. On the Covenant Theology side, believers in all ages
are in Christ.

Twenty-fourth. Dispensationalists teach that the law has been abolished

for believers in the New Covenant. Or, should I put it this way, for
believers in the church age. And some will go as far as to argue that the
Sermon on the Mount is not for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount is
for the kingdom age, and so we can only indirectly learn from the Sermon
on the Mount. In contrast, the Covenant Theology teaches that the law
continues to have three uses in the New Covenant: to restrain sin, to lead
to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. Those are the three uses
of the law.

Twenty-five. Dispensationalists teach that Old Testament laws are not in

effect unless they are repeated in the New Covenant or in the New
Testament. And of course, Covenant Theologians teach that the Old
Testament moral law remains in effect in the New Covenant, though the
civil and ceremonial laws have been abrogated.

Twenty-six. For the Dipsensationalists, the millennium is the kingdom of

God. For Covenant Theologians, the kingdom of God is much broader
than merely the millennium. The church is its institutional form, and
Covenant Theologians are usually amillennial or post millennial.

Twenty-seventh. Dispensationalists believe that Old Testament animal

sacrifices will be restored in the millennium, whereas Covenant
Theologians believe that the Old Testament sacrifices were fulfilled in
Christ and have been abolished forever.

And finally, classic Dispensationalists teach that David will reign on the
millennial throne in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Old Testament
prophecies. And Covenant Theologians teach that Christ is reigning on
the throne and His saints will rule under Him and the new earth. That is
a quick outline.

Dispensationalism

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.

2. Stresses 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.

3. Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'

4. 'Israel' always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.

5. Israel of God' in Gal. 6:16 means physical Israel alone.

6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the
Church (heavenly).

7. The Church was born at Pentecost.

8. The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden
mystery until the N.T.

9. All O.T. prophecies for' Israel , are for literal Israel, not the Church.

10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.

11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.

12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.

13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.

14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.

16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.

17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not
the New Covenant of Lk. 22:20

18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.

19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O.T. sinners were saved by
works.

20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by
faith in a revelation peculiar to their Dispensation, but this did not
include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the
Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.

22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the Dispensation of Grace,
not O.T. and not after the Rapture.

23. Jesus made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel
rejected it, it is postponed.

24. O.T. believers were not 'in Christ,' nor part of the Body or Bride of
Christ.

25. The Law has been abolished.

26. O.T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T.
27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of God Dispensationalists are always
Pre-Millennial and usually Pre-Tribulational.

28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium.

29. The Millennium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a
future.

30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in Jerusalem.

COVENANT THEOLOGY

1. Always Calvinist. Usually 5 point.

2. Accepts both literal and figurative interpretation of the Bible.

3. Almost always accepts the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'

4. 'Israel' may mean either literal, physical descendants of Jacob or the

figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on context.

5. 'Israel of God' in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Gal. 3:29,
Rom. 2:28-29, 9:6, Phil. 3:3.

6. God has always had only 1 people, the Church gradually developed.

7. The Church began in the O.T. (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the
N.T.

8. There are many O.T. prophecies of the N.T. Church.

9. Some O.T. prophecies are for literal Israel, others are for spiritual
Israel.

10. God's main purpose in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.

11. The Church is the culmination of God's saying purpose for the ages.
12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Christ and spiritual Israel.

13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect
election.

14. God made a conditional Covenant of Works with Adam as

representative for all his posterity.

15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including
Adam

16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.

17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31 is the same as in Lk. 22; both are for
spiritual Israel according to Heb. 8.

18. God's program in history is mainly through related covenants.

19. No man has ever been saved by works, but only by grace.

20. All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ
as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.

21. O.T. believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly

by the sacrifices as types and prophecies.

22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the
present N.T. era, and will not be withdrawn.

23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected
by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.

24. Believers in all ages are all 'in Christ' and part of the Body and Bride
of Christ.

25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to
instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial laws have been
abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general
equity; the moral laws continue.
26. O.T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.

27. The Church is the Kingdom of God. Covenanters are usually

Amillennial , sometimes Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial, rarely Pre-
Tribulational.

28. The O.T. sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.

29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe

in a future for literal Israel, most don't.

30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.

The Davidic Covenant

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to 2 Samuel 7.
We are going to rapidly overview to the Davidic Covenant and especially
the establishment of the house of David in II Samuel 7

The Davidic Covenant

Robertson says that the climax of the Old Covenant is found in the
coming of the kingdom in David’s day. When the king sits on his throne,
the kingdom has come. That principle holds true for both the Old and the
New Covenant eras. To understand this, we will first look at II Samuel 7
and then I would like to set the context for this Davidic Covenant. Let’s
hear God’s Word in II Samuel 7:

Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had
given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to
Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of
God dwells within tent curtains." And Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all
that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you." But it came about in the
same night that the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, "Go and
say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD," Are you the one who
should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house
since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day;
but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. "Wherever I
have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the
tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel,
saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'" ' "Now therefore,
thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts," I
took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be
ruler over My people Israel. "And I have been with you wherever you have
gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make
you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. "I
will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that
they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the
wicked afflict them any more as formerly, even from the day that I
commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest
from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will
make a house for you. "When your days are complete and you lie down
with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will
come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build a
house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom
forever. "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he
commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes
of the sons of men, but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I
took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. "And your
house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne
shall be established forever." '" In accordance with all these words and all
this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.” Thus ends God’s word.

Context of the Davidic Covenant

Let me set the context of this great passage. This passage offers one of
the most significant moments in God’s dealing with His people under the
Old Covenant, because the establishment of the house of David is an
integral part in God’s master plan to crush the head of the serpent. For
instance, Psalm 78, verses 67-72, makes it clear that the placement of
David on the throne was of major significance in God’s redemptive
purpose and was essential to the establishment of godly rule in Israel.
God had brought His people out of Egypt. He had given them a good
land. He had driven out their enemies. But because of their sinfulness in
the days of the judges, God was angered and delivered them into the
hands of their enemies. And then, Psalm 78 tells us that God came to
their rescue, established sanctuary and remedied their sin. He paved the
way for righteousness in setting up His servant David as the shepherd of
Israel, as the servant king on the throne.

So the book of II Samuel records four important events which provide

the context for II Samuel 7. II Samuel 7 is the formal inauguration of the
Covenant of God with David. It is the formal inauguration of the Davidic
Covenant. But there are four important events that provide the context to
this passage. And here they are.

First, the long civil war in Israel between the forces of Saul and David was
brought to an end. And David was recognized as king. II Samuel 5:3
says, “So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King
David made a covenant with them before the LORD at Hebron; then they
anointed David king over Israel.” And we are told in II Samuel 5:10 that
David responded to this in this way: David perceived that the Lord had
established him as king over Israel and that He had exalted his kingdom
for His people Israel’s sake. Now that is not an insignificant statement on
David’s part, because you remember David’s whole plan for the
unification of the kingdom was jeopardized by the wickedness of his
general, Joab.

You also remember Abner had come to David and wanted to establish
with some sort of peace agreement between the forces of Saul and the
forces of David. Abner was the lead general for Saul, and continued to
run the opposition even after the death of Saul in the civil war. And
Abner had come to David, at Hebron and he had made a pact with him,
and he said, look, I am going back to the armies of Saul and I am going to
tell them, lay down your arms, we are going to follow David. And you can
imagine how David’s heart would have been lifted by the prospect of the
end of this long civil war. And it wasn’t just a civil war, remember, it was
a holy war in the eyes of those who were fighting it. Those on both sides
had fundamental religious principles at stake as well as political
principles at stake. And what happened to Abner? Joab found out what
Abner had done, Joab feared that Abner would displace him as the lead
assistant and general, and Joab independently of David’s knowledge,
called Abner to come and meet him and he killed him.

Now you can imagine, if you can pick up on the rumors that fly around
our President today, okay, you can imagine the kind of things that were
said about David in Israel when that happened. You know, ah ha, David
lured good Abner to his palace to cut this deal and Abner cut this deal and
what did he do? He literally stabbed him in the back. You can imagine
that from David’s standpoint, this looked like the end of any possibility of
any reconciliation between these two forces, because Abner was an
honorable man. But Joab hated him for a variety of reasons that I won’t
go into right now, and Joab jeopardized the whole plan. So when God
finally brought an end to this war, David really did realize that it was God
who had given Israel into his hands, because he couldn’t have conceived
now anything but utterly wiping out the other side, ever bringing an end
to animosity between those two warring groups, so that is the first thing
that happens in setting up what happens in II Samuel 7. We see and end
to the civil war. David is established as king in the land.

Secondly, in II Samuel 5, verses 6 and 7, we learn that David captures the

stronghold of the Jebusites in Jerusalem and he made it his capital. We
are told in II Samuel 5, verses 6 and 7, that the king and his men went to
Jerusalem, to the Jebusites to the inhabitants of the land, and David took
the stronghold of Zion, the same as the City of David. Up until that time,
David’s king, his capital had been among the Southern tribes in Hebron,
and this move to Jerusalem which occupied a strategically central
location between the Northern and Southern tribes, a strategic location
for transport and warfare and communication, thus became his capital.
And of course, that was an important step in establishing the unity of
Israel. The Jebusites had long been a thorn in the flesh of the Israelites,
who had not obeyed the Lord in driving them out of the land in the
original conquest. So now, David finally drives the Jebusites out of Zion.

Third, in II Samuel 6, verses 16 and 17, we see that David brings the Ark
of the Lord to Jerusalem. This is the third aspect or event that sets the
stage for the establishment of the Davidic Covenant. This emphasized the
close connection between David’s kingship, and the rule of God in Israel.
The ark represented the throne of God, the presence of God, the rule of
God, amongst His people. And to bring the ark into the capital, to the
same location, was to emphasize that David’s reign in Israel was reflective
of the rule of God in Israel. The king of Israel would rule under the direct
command of God, whose presence was symbolized in the form of the ark.

Fourth, we are told in II Samuel 7 verse 1, that the Lord had given David
rest from all his enemies. In other words, God gave David’s kingdom an
unprecedented security form the adversaries that had been such a threat
to the very existence to the nation. The Lord has finally brought a level of
peace not experienced heretofore in Israel, here at that advent of David’s
reign.

So all four of these things provide the context for what read in II Samuel 7
verses 1-3. And I direct your attention there. Now in the context of the
culmination of those four things, David pours the thoughts of his heart
out to his faithful prophet Nathan. He says, "See now, I dwell in a house
of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." David sensed
the incongruity of his living in an impressive palace while the Ark of God
was still in a tent. I mean if David was in a palace of cedar, surely, God’s
ark ought to be an impressive structure. David’s own humility and his
love for the Lord moved him with the desire to bring about a change in
that situation and he shared that desire with Nathan, his friend, his
prophet. And Nathan perceiving the king’s sincere motivation, gave his
blessing on the project, which was implied in his words to David. He
said, “go and do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you.”

Now some have suggested that Nathan here spoke a prophetic word that
did not come true. since God subsequently instructed David not to go
through with the building. However, I want to note, first, that Nathan
was absolutely correct when he said, the Lord is with you. The Lord
Himself affirms that in verse 9. I was with you wherever you went. The
hand of the Lord was indeed upon His servant David.

And second, as Matthew Henry reminded us a long time ago, Nathan

spoke this not in God’s name, but as from himself, not as a prophet, but
as a wise and good man. And we are going to see in the very way that God
corrected David here and forestalled this event coming about. God,
Himself, protected both David, and Nathan’s reputation in the way He
went about doing this. Look at verses 4-7 now, here we see God’s
response. The Lord’s gracious response is recorded in these verses, the
same night that David had shared this with Nathan, and Nathan had said
to him, “Go and do it, the Lord is with you,” the Lord came to Nathan
and He instructed him to put a question to David. He said, “Go and say
to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD," Are you the one who should
build Me a house to dwell in?” Now look at how good and wise our
sovereign Lord is in the way he sends these words to David. He gives
these words to David from the mouth of Nathan and not from another
prophet, so that the reputation of Nathan would not be impugned. I
mean, what would it have been like, if God had sent another prophet to
tell this to David. It would have looked like Nathan had spoken wrongly.
But God is good and He allows Nathan to be the one to deliver this news.
And think how perplexing it would have been to David to have had
Nathan tell him during the day, the Lord is with you, go and do likewise
and then another prophet shows up and says don’t do it. So the Lord’s
wisdom and kindness is seen in the way that He delivers this message to
David. David is not confused and Nathan’s reputation is not damaged.

Furthermore, the Lord came immediately to Nathan, before David could

act on the prophet’s words of encouragement, and thus he spared both of
them from embarrassment. Finally, note that the Lord does not speak a
sharp rebuke to David. The Lord does not speak a sharp rebuke to
David. He honors His servant’s holy desires by giving His contrary
instructions gently in the form of a question. In fact, we later find out
from the lips of David’s son, Solomon, that the Lord told David that He
was pleased with what David wanted to do. Turn with me to I Kings. I
Kings, chapter 8, verses 18-19. “But the LORD said to my father David,
'Because it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well
that it was in your heart.” So Solomon tells you that the Lord said to
David that He was pleased with the desires of his heart, even though it
was the Lord’s plan for Solomon to build this house, not David. Then, in
verse 6, the Lord reminds David of an important spiritual truth. He say,
“For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of
Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a
tent, even in a tabernacle.” And I want you to stop for a moment and
think how profound those words are.

First, they point to God’s willingness to identify with His people. If His
people must travel in the wilderness in tents, God is going to be there
with them. The sovereign God of Israel is not removed from His people,
He is nigh unto His people, and He even shares in their humiliations. Is
this not a foretaste of Christ’s tabernacling with His people. And yet, you
see it here in the sovereign God of Israel.

Secondly, these words emphasize God’s continual presence with His

people. He is not distant or unconcerned. But He is near. He is even in
the midst of His people. And our glorious Lord Jesus Christ would one
day show forth beyond all human expectation, the extent of God’s
commitment to be with His people, when John tells us in John 1:14, that
“He was made flesh and He dwelt, He tabernacled among us.” Now in
verses 8-17, we see that covenant which God inaugurates here with
David. The Lord surpasses Himself in blessing David. He reminds David
that it was He who chose him and made him ruler. “I took you from
herding sheep, from following the sheep to be my ruler over my people,
over Israel.” He has been with David, He has given him victory over His
enemies, He is the one who has made David great, He is the one who will
make David great. “I was with you wherever you went. I have cut off all
your enemies out of your sight.” I have made you a great name, like to the
names of the great men that are in the earth, verse 9.

Furthermore, God says in verse 11, He will establish His people in their
own land and He will give them rest from their enemies. And ultimately,
again, verse 11, the Lord Himself will build David a house. Nathan tells
David that God will make you a house. Now notice here the play on
words. David had begun this passage by saying, that he wanted to build
a house for the Lord. Of course, by that, he meant a temple. Now as you
know, the word for house, means palace. And the word for temple, or
house, means temple, and the word for dynasty are all the same word in
Hebrew. And so there is a play on words going on here. David says Lord,
I want to build you a house,” meaning a temple, “because it is not right
for me to be in a house,” meaning a palace, “and “You dwell in a tent.
And God comes back and He says, “David, will you build Me a house,”
meaning a temple? “No. I will build you a house,” meaning a dynasty.
The Lord was not speaking of building David a house of cedar. He was
speaking of building David a dynasty. That is something that He has not
given to Saul. Saul wanted Jonathan to sit on the throne and God told
Saul that Jonathan would not sit on the throne of Israel. But now God is
saying to David, “David, your sons will sit on the throne of Israel.” So, the
Lord says, “You will not build Me a house, a temple, but I will build you a
house, a dynasty.” He would establish David and his seed after him, as
the monarchs of the people of God.

The Covenant with David Established.

Now in these words and the following, we have the formal inauguration
of God’s covenant with David, though the word covenant is not found
here. Other passages explicitly state that this was a covenant
inauguration. For instance Psalm 89, verses 3 and 4, “I have made a
covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to David, My servant, your seed
will I establish forever and build up your throne to all generations.” You
will also find that in Psalm 132. So later passages make this clear that
this is a covenant inauguration.

Now, the covenant insures a number of blessings to David. First, his own
flesh and blood will occupy the throne. And when thy days be fulfilled
and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and I will set up thy seed after thee
which shall proceed out of your body, I will establish his kingdom.” Verse
12. This is no small promise, given the political instability of the near east
kingdoms of David’s time, or for today for that matter.

Secondly, David’s heir will fulfill David’s desire by building a house for
God. In verse 13, God says, “He shall build a house for My name.”

Third, David’s heir will stand in unique relationship to God. God will be
his father, and he will be His son. Nathan proclaims that amazing word,
“I will be his father and he will shall be My son.”

Now, we who live under the New Covenant, and who have the precious
privilege of addressing God as Father, may not be too startled by that
statement, but to the Hebrew ear, it would have been unbelievable.
Nowhere else in the Old Testament is an individual so clearly designated
a son of God. And yet that is the blessing of David’s covenant.

Fourth, David’s heir may experience punishment for sins, but he will not
be cast off like Saul. We are likely to read verse 14, very negatively. Look
at that second phrase in verse 14, “when he commits inequity, I will
correct him with the rod of men and strokes of the sons of man.” On the
surface, that looks very negative. However, you need to understand that
in the context of Saul’s having been cut off, so that is actually a very
positive thing that is being said there. If he stumbles, and he will, like
Saul, I will not cut him off. I will discipline him, but I will not cut him
off. This of course, proved important in the days of Solomon’s
disobedience as well as for many of the kings of Judah.

Fifth and finally, God makes the astonishing promise that David’s
kingdom will last forever. “Your house, your kingdom will be established
forever before Me.” Your throne will be established forever. It is worth
noting that David’s dynasty is without parallel in the ancient near east in
length of duration. His house ruled Judah for over four hundred years,
for longer than the greatest Egyptian dynasty, and in stark contrast, to
the numerous ruling families in the Northern kingdom. I am told that
there has never been a longer reign of a single dynasty in any land in the
history of the world than David’s four hundred year dynastic reign.

The Davidic Covenant Fulfilled

But of course, the promise was not that David would reign for a long time,
but that he would reign forever. That very fact lead the prophets of the
Old Testament to see that this Davidic promise would only be fulfilled in
the Messiah, and that is of course exactly how the New Testament
interprets it. This reign is ultimately only fulfilled in the reign of the son
of David, Jesus Christ and His eternal messianic rule. This promise finds
its ultimate fulfillment only in the reign of Christ. The succession of the
Davidic kings under the Old Covenant was a type. It was a shadowy
figure. A preillustration of the unbroken eternal reign of the Lord Jesus,
who even now reigns at the right hand in heaven.

And this, by the way, is one of the classic examples of why we should not
allow the Old Testament pattern of description to determine our
understanding of the New Testament reality. Or else, you will end up
with the old time Dispensationalists believing that one day, David is
going to be reestablished on the throne in literal, earthly Israel. Of
course, the New Testament in passages like Hebrews 1:5, makes it clear
that the Davidic reign was prophetic of Christ’s reign. The reality is, by
definition, clearer than the shadow. So you interpret the shadow by the
reality, not the reality by the shadow. If the Davidic reign was a
foreshadowing of the ultimate reality, surely you allow your
understanding of the ultimate reality to help you understand what the
foreshadowing meant, rather than the other way around.

Question: Is there a covenant sign in the Davidic covenant?

The short answer is no. There is no covenant sign mentioned in the

Davidic Covenant as a specific covenant sign. But if there is any symbol
of the Davidic covenant, it would be the throne. And let me just give you
one example of that. If you would turn with me to I Chronicles 29, verse
22, “they made Solomon, the son of David, king a second time, and they
anointed him as ruler for the Lord and Zadok as priest. Then, Solomon
sat on the throne of the Lord.” Yes, you read it right. Solomon sat on the
throne of the Lord. You see there, what? An identification between the
rule of God in Israel, and the rule of David in his seed. And so the throne
in the Davidic Covenant functions to epitomize the message of the
covenant with David. The teaching of, the prophetic teaching of the
covenant of David, points us mostly to an understanding of two things.
Jesus, office as king, and Jesus preaching of the kingdom. And that
throne both points to the office of David and his descendants as the
unique divinely appointed king of Israel, and to the rule of God in Israel,
because God is even willing to call the throne of David, the throne of
Yahweh. So that is quite an extraordinary statement there in I
Chronicles. And clearly the Chronicler has a theological agenda behind
that. He is showing you the significance of the Davidic line in the plan of
God. He is preparing you for the significance of the split of the nation
and the wickedness that occurs from that, and he is relating it to the
rejection of that divinely appointed throne of the line of David.

Old Testament Prophecies of the New

Covenant-
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and the
New Testament - The Covenant in the New
Testament
I want to look at Jeremiah 31, because that is obviously the only
passage in the prophetic literature which uses the terminology New
Covenant. That terminology of New Covenant becomes very, very
significant in the New Testament itself. It is picked up by the author of
Hebrews, but it is also mentioned in the Last Supper narrative by the
Lord Jesus Himself, as He explains the meaning of His death. And if that
alone had occurred in the New Testament, that would indicate the
extreme significance of the concept of New Covenant for explaining the
meaning of the death of Christ. So we are going to look at that prophetic
passage.

But we are also going to mention the fact that even in passages where
the terminology of New Covenant is not used in the Old Testament, the
concept of New Covenant is very present. For instance, there are other
passages in Jeremiah’s book where he doesn’t use the terminology of New
Covenant, but mentions the same basic theological concepts which he
mentions specifically in Jeremiah 31.

Old Testament Prophecies of the New Covenant

One of the exercises that I am going to commend to you for your own
biblical theological research in the Old Testament is to begin to build a
catalog of passages from the prophets which refer to the concept of the
New Covenant without referring to or using the terminology of the New
Covenant. And then begin to collate those, and as you do, you will begin
to see very similar themes coming out. And we will do enough of that
today that you will get at least an idea of how this may be helpful in
understanding the prophetic idea of the New Covenant.

And then having done that, I want to look briefly with you at the whole
issue of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old and the New Covenant. I
have already had a couple of you raise that very good question in
connection with some previous lectures. Well, today is the day that we
are going to get that. I am going to try and look with you, at least in
outline, at the function of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant
administration of the Covenant of Grace, and under the New Covenant
administration of the Covenant of Grace. And we can attempt to explain
why the New Testament uses such extreme language when it indicates
that the New Covenant is the era of the Holy Spirit in distinction from the
Old Covenant. How can that language be used? Does that language
mean that the Holy Spirit was not operating in the Old Covenant? Or, in
what way is the New Covenant distinctively the era of the Spirit? So, that
is a very significant biblical theological issue. It impacts all sorts of issues
in the Christian life from soteriology, to your doctrine of sanctification.
So we are going to look at that briefly today. That is the second thing we
are going to look at and then depending on how much time we have left,
we are going to try and begin plowing through the New Testament itself,
and looking at how it uses the Covenant concept in it own theology. And
basically we are going to begin by cataloging every reference to the term
covenant in the New Testament and looking at the theological context.
So we will begin working through that way. So, for those of you who have
been concerned that we just haven’t had enough biblical content in this
course, we’ll try and amend that today.

In Jeremiah 31, we are going to begin with a prophecy in verse 27:

“Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the
house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the
seed of beast. "And it will come about that as I have watched over them to
pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy, and to bring disaster,
so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. "In
those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.' "But everyone will die for his
own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on
edge. "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not
like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them
by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which
they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "But
this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those
days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
"And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his
brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the
least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will
forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Thus far the reading of God’s holy Word. Let’s pray together.

“Heavenly Father, we thank You for this passage. We thank You for
the significance of it in the life of the church, for the way it has impacted
us as we have heard it referred to in the taking of the Lord’s Supper, and
in the preaching of the Gospel itself. We pray that we would understand
more of it as we study it today. Pray that we would appreciate the
prophetic preparation for the New Covenant which You set forth
through Your faithful prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and
others. And we ask that You would give us a greater understanding of
this, in order that we might proclaim the truth. But even more
fundamentally, than that, that we might ourselves have our breath
taken away by the glory of the grace of the Gospel. We ask these things
in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

Now, as I have just mentioned, Jeremiah is the only prophet to use the
term, New Covenant. That is a unique term in the Old Testament. In
fact, it is unique to this passage. The concept of New Covenant is only
mentioned explicitly once here: Jeremiah 31:31, “I will make a New
Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Just one aside on this matter. The Essenes made a great deal of the
New Covenant concept. Now, that should be interesting to you in light of
the exposition of the book of Hebrews if you believe as do some, such as
Phillip Hughes and myself, that the book of Hebrews was written to a
congregation that had some knowledge of and was perhaps being tugged
at by Essene Theology. Then, the New Covenant teaching in the book of
Hebrews takes on a new significance to you, because it is placed against
the backdrop of incorrect Essene teaching about the New Covenant.
 If you have read any of the Qumran material about the New Covenant,
you know that the Essene idea of the New Covenant was basically the Old
Covenant, sort of fixed up and tossed back out on the table again. In
other words, it was sort of the Old Covenant renewed in a pristine form.
Which of course, from the New Testament, perspective is a radical
mistake in the understanding of what the New Covenant is. The New
Covenant is not simply the Old Covenant in its Mosaic form cleaned up a
little bit and tossed back out onto the table. It genuinely is a New
Covenant in quality and in content. And so this New Covenant teaching
is very significant.

Now, though Jeremiah is the only prophet to use the term New
Covenant, he is certainly not the only prophet to use the concept of New
Covenant. Let me give you one example in Jeremiah which conveys the
same type of content that you see here in Jeremiah 31 verses 31-34, but
does not use the terminology of New Covenant. And I think you will see
the transferable concepts as we begin to review other prophets. Look at
Jeremiah 32. In Jeremiah 32, we read this, beginning in verse 37:

“Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven
them in My anger, in My wrath, and in great indignation; and I will bring
them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. "And they shall be
My people, and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart and one
way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good, and for the good
of their children after them. "And I will make an everlasting covenant
with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I
will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from
Me. "And I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will faithfully
plant them in this land with all My heart and with all My soul.”

Now we could go on, but you get the idea. There are already themes in
that passage which refer not to a New Covenant, but to an everlasting
covenant. Themes that are similar, themes which have already been
elucidated on in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Now, the fact of the matter is that we can find this throughout the
prophetic literature. Let me turn you to one other place in Jeremiah 50,
where we read this, in verses 4 and 5:
 “In those days and at that time," declares the LORD, "the sons of
Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well;”

There again, you see a theme that you saw in Jeremiah 31. The house
of Israel, and the house of Judah are united.

“they will go along weeping as they go.” There’s that theme of

judgment that you see as the preface to Jeremiah 31:31-34. You saw that
especially in verses 27-30, where words of judgment were spoken. “they
will go along weeping as they go, and it will be the LORD their God they
will seek. "They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its
direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the LORD in
an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten.”

You remember that one of the ways that Jeremiah defines New
Covenant in Jeremiah 31, was how? It was going to be a New Covenant in
the sense of what? It is not going to be like the covenant which the
children of Israel broke. So his language of everlasting covenant fits
perfectly with that concept of the New Covenant, because one of the
distinguishing marks of the New Covenant from Jeremiah’s
perspective is its permanence, it unbreakableness. And so his
language of everlasting covenant fits beautifully with his definition of
New Covenant in Jeremiah 31. So again, we are seeing similar themes
without the terminology of New Covenant being used. Turn to the book
of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel, chapter 37, we read this. And by the way, this
beautifully ties in some of the stuff that we studied in our study of the
Davidic Covenant in II Samuel 7 last time. Ezekiel 37, beginning in verse
24.

“And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have
one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes,
and observe them. And they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My
servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and
their sons, and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant shall be
their prince forever. And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it
will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and
multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My
dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they
will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the LORD who
sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever." '

So again, here in Ezekiel’s exposition of the New Covenant era of the

kingdom of God, he doesn’t use the language of New Covenant or
everlasting covenant. He uses the language of Covenant of Peace. But
the concepts are there, and they are parallel to Jeremiah’s concepts. Turn
back to Ezekiel 16. You will see this again. In Ezekiel 16, beginning in
verse 60:

“Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of

your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Now, he
is using the same terminology that Jeremiah often uses. Then you will
remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both
your older and your younger; and I will give them to you as daughters,
but not because of your covenant. Thus I will establish My covenant with
you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, in order that you may
remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore
because of your humiliation, when I have forgiven you for all that you
have done, "the Lord GOD declares.”

And again, you see the theme of the everlasting covenant, you see the
theme of the forgiveness of sins, you see the theme of reunion. All of
these themes that you see in Jeremiah 31 are being repeated by Ezekiel
without the use of the terminology New Covenant. We could see the
same thing if we were to turn to Ezekiel 34, in Ezekiel 34, and throughout
that passage, especially beginning in verse 11, you will see this kind of
language echoed, especially look for instance at verse 23”

“Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he
will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. And I,
the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among
them; I, the LORD, have spoken. And I will make a covenant of peace
with them.”

And that is the passage, by the way, from which we get the phrase,
there will be showers of blessing. We get it from that passage in Ezekiel
34.
 So you see, you hear these themes being repeated, even though three
different terms are used: New Covenant, Everlasting Covenant, Covenant
of Peace. But you see the concept circulating in Ezekiel and in Jeremiah.
And indeed we could come with a fairly extensive catalog of these types of
predictory passages. And I would suggest that if you are ever attempting
to take a look at what the Old Testament prophets expected from the New
Covenant era in the kingdom of God, then correlating them is a good way
to see a fuller picture of prophetic view of the nature of the New
Covenant.

Very often, you get the idea that the New Testament teaches the right
doctrine from the wrong text. We hear biblical theologians say that all
the time. The New Testament got the theology right, but it was really bad
exegesis. What I think you will find out, is first of all, that is a very
dangerous thing to say, because the New Testament is the divinely
inspired hermeneutical manual to the Old Testament. That is what the
New Testament is. So when you start quibbling over the New Testament
exegesis, you are quibbling with something very serious. It is God’s
exegesis. And His exegesis is not quite open to the same kind of scrutiny
as mine is.

But secondly what I think you will find is that, in fact, the New
Testament shows a tremendous grasp of the main lines of prophetic Old
Testament understanding in the nature of the New Covenant. And you
can understand how Jesus and His apostles have to spend a lot of time
correcting Jewish misexpectations based on incorrect rabbinical
teaching. And I suspect that one reason why Jesus was very careful about
using terminology related to the Covenant in His public ministry was
precisely because of the misunderstandings of the covenant based on an
inadequate grasp of what the prophets were teaching about the nature of
the New Covenant. And I think as you lay it out yourself, and you can do
it, it is not a difficult exercise, but lay out side by side prophetic passage
after prophetic passage which deal with the nature of the New Covenant,
whether it is called Covenant of Peace, or the everlasting Covenant, the
New Covenant, and I think you will begin to see certain key elements. In
fact, we are going to look at some of those emphases in a few moments.
Robertson attempts to do this in Christ of the Covenant, in his chapter on
the New Covenant dealing with Jeremiah’s covenant. And we are going
to do that ourselves in a few moments. But I want to stress is the New
Testament authors do a wonderful job of seeing the nuance presentation
of the prophetic material on this.

Now, at least three New Testament authors apply central aspects of

the New Covenant teaching to the present day. Luke, in Luke 22, verse
20, in the midst of the Lord’s Supper and especially in the cup word of the
Lord’s Supper, takes Jeremiah’s concept of the New Covenant, and of
course I am speaking in a New Testament sort of way here, because he is
simply recording for us what the Lord Jesus says. But Luke records for
us, Jesus taking up the language of Jeremiah 31 and applying it to the
meaning of His death in Luke 22. Now, in our last class session I am
going to spend a good deal of time, simply exegeting that passage. So I
am not going to stop and do it right now. But just bear in mind, there is
one major author in the New Testament who picks up on the connection
between the work of Christ and the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.

Furthermore, in Hebrews, not only in chapter 10, but also in chapter

9, in chapter 8, and elsewhere, the author of Hebrews picks up the
concept of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31 and applies it, surprise,
surprise, to the work of Christ. In his argument it is designed to show the
superiority of Christ. And even John picks up on this theme. In fact,
there is a lot of Covenant Theology hidden in the Gospel of John and I am
not going after that right now, but in I John chapter 2, verse 7, there is a
pretty significant hint to one aspect of the New Covenant of Jeremiah. In
I John 2, we read this, beginning in verse 25:

“And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to
deceive you.”

You remember, He has just spoken about those who have departed
from the church, for whatever kind of Gnostic error that they have opted
for. And he goes on to say,

“And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in
you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing
teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has
taught you, you abide in Him.”

Now that is an exceedingly rich passage, which deserves a long

treatment itself, but understand the basic thing that John is saying there.
What is one of the fundamental differences, John says, between those
Christians who have continued to abide in the Apostolic teaching and
those who have left the teaching of the Church to go back to this Gnostic
era. Those who remain are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and hence, taught
of the Lord.

Now, what is he picking up on? Jeremiah’s promise that from the

least of them to the greatest, they will not need a teacher to teach them
the law of God, it will have been written on their hearts by God, Himself.
And so John is saying, “I can tell that that reality of the New Covenant
has come about in you. Because you have not fallen for the false
teaching. Why? Because you have the Holy Spirit to be your teacher.”

Now does that mean that John doesn’t need to teach them anything?
No, he wouldn’t have written the book, if he hadn’t had to do that. He is
speaking at a much more fundamental level, of the spirit of discernment
which is gained only by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And he
is saying, “They didn’t have discernment, so they weren’t of us.” And he
is saying, “Of course, you have discernment, you are of us.” It doesn’t
mean that you have anything to learn, but it does mean that in that
promise of Jeremiah 31, there is a real tangible evidencing of that reality
coming to pass in their lives as believers because they have been able to
resist the false teaching that turns away from the fullness of what the
Apostolic teaching tells us about Jesus Christ. That teaching which some
of their fellow professing believers have now reneged upon, but they have
not; among other things, that He was truly human and He was truly
divine. And he sees that as the fruit of the promises of Jeremiah 31
coming true in their lives. So in each of those passages, we have
references in the New Testament to central aspects of Jeremiah’s New
Covenant promise, so that New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah is clearly
of continuing importance for us today.

Old Testament Emphases Regarding the New Covenant

Now let me just mention six or seven of the emphases that you find in
Jeremiah’s prophecies and in Ezekiel’s prophecies regarding this New
Covenant and Robertson mentions each of these.

First of all, there is an emphasis on a return from exile to the land.

There is an emphasis on the return of exile to the land. Now, the idea of
the land and the Promised Land stretches all the way back to the concept
of the Garden of Eden in the Bible. And from Eden in Genesis 1 and 2,
the next concept of a divinely given Promised Land is picked up in the
promises to Abraham which are fulfilled in the land of Canaan. And this
a major theme in the book of Joshua among other things.

Now, it is very clear as well, from the author of Hebrews, that that
concept of the Promised Land and the land of Canaan is not the
culminating point in the idea of a land, a place of belonging of homeness
for the people of God. But that in fact, that promise of the land of
Palestine, itself, actually points forward to a greater reality. And, that
fact is pointed to in passages like Ezekiel 40-48. Now, what is happening
in Ezekiel 40-48? What is the big theme of Ezekiel 40-48? The New
Temple. This is the New Temple of the people of God. Now what is
interesting about that temple that is spoken of in Ezekiel 40-48? If you
know the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem in the time of Ezekiel, and
you plot, like good engineers, the temple that is described and its
dimensions, it would have had to exceeded the city walls and city limits of
Jerusalem to have been built. Now what is Ezekiel hinting at there? He
is hinting that the temple that he is describing transcends any kind of
reality to which his own people can relate to. Were his temple to be built
in the Jerusalem of his time, it would have been larger than Jerusalem
itself. It would have gone outside the boundaries of the walls. He is
clearly pointing to a reality that transcends their present experience.

And John picks up on that, by the way in Revelation 21. That very
idea is picked up upon as he is describing new heavens and the new
earth. And in Revelation 21, as John is carried away in the spirit to see
the holy city, the Jerusalem of God coming down out of heaven, he says,
beginning in verse 16, that “the city was laid out as a square, with its
length as great as the width, he measured the city with a rod. Fifteen
hundred miles, its length, its width, and height are equal. And he
measured its walls, 72 yards according to human measurements which
are also angelic measurements.” And then he goes on to describe the
particular composition of the walls.

Now apart from the fact that conceiving a city of equal length, and
width and height, that is not the normal way we describe a city. But if you
add the square miles of such a city, it is larger than the square miles of
the nation of Israel. So again, John is pointing you to a reality that
transcends your current experience. He is saying, “let me tell you about a
city that is going to be larger than the nation of Israel itself.” Plus, he
speaks about these things that clearly point to the symbolic nature of
what he is speaking about, the height of a city, being equal to its length
and breath. And then there are angelic measurements and human
measurements. What are angelic measurements? Has anyone learned
angel measurements 101 at the university anytime recently? He is clearly
giving you to understand that he is talking something that transcends
your current experience. While he speaks to the realities of Eden and the
land of Palestine in Canaan and Israel, occupied by the Israelites, those
realities are actually pointing to that same reality, the heavens and the
earth as God has prepared for His people.

Now, by the way, Paul picks up on this theme too. If you look at
Romans chapter 4, we know that Abraham was promised the land of
Canaan. And Paul says in Romans 4:13, “the promise to Abraham and to
his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the
law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Now, Paul expands your
expectations on Abraham’s land promises, beyond simply the bounds of
Palestine, to the inheritance of the whole earth. So over and over, we
have those themes of Israel returning to the land in the prophetic
literature, being understood in the New Testament to be something much
greater and grander than simply reoccupying the ancient territorial
boundaries of Israel, even if it is understood to be the boundaries that
were established in the time of David and Solomon which were at their
greatest extent. So, over and over those land promises in the prophecies
are taken by New Testament writers to have far broader meaning for the
people of God than simply that little plot of land on the east of the
Mediterranean Sea.
 Then, the promise you see in Ezekiel 36:35, the restoration of Israel to
the land, listen to the language, Ezekiel 36:33.

“Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day that I cleanse you from all your
iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will
be rebuilt. "And the desolate land will be cultivated instead of being a
desolation in the sight of everyone who passed by. "And they will say,
'This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden;”

So you see a connection back to the concept of the Garden of Eden in

the return of Israel to the land. But it looks forward to something much
greater than even the return of Israel to the land of Palestine. That land
of Palestine itself is a symbol of something even greater that God plans to
do and that is of course what? Giving all His people the new heavens and
the new earth. It is yours.

Secondly, we see in Ezekiel and in Jeremiah the idea that there is

going to be a full restoration of blessing in the New Covenant. Not only
the new heavens and the new earth for the people of God, but a full
restoration of blessing. There will be a reversal of the curse of sin. Which
is, of course, death.

Over and over in those Old Covenant prophecies about the New
Covenant, the reversal of the curse of sin is spoken of. One example is
found in Ezekiel 37. This passage, no doubt forms the background of
Jesus’ comments in John chapter 3 verse 8, when He says, “the wind
blows where it will, and we don’t where it comes from and where it is
going.” And you know that the play on words, between spirit, speaking of
our human spirit, and wind, and breath and Holy Spirit exists for both
the Greek pneuma and the Hebrew nephish. And so this passage here in
Jeremiah 37, which is primarily focused on the return of those who are
thought to be dead in languishing and exile, being brought back into the
land, this passage forms the backdrop of John chapter 3 verse 8, but here
I want you to see how it is used prophetically. The dry bones resurrected
are a picture of the everlasting covenant and how it brings a reviving to
the people of God, from death to life. Jeremiah 37, verse 1:

“The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the
Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it
was full of bones. And He caused me to pass among them round about,
and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo,
they were very dry. And He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones
live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, Thou knowest." Again He said to
me, "Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, ' O dry bones, hear the
word of the LORD. 'Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I
will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 'And I will put
sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin, and put
breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the
LORD.' "

And again in verses 11-14, this vision is explained.

“Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of
Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope has
perished. We are completely cut off.' "Therefore prophesy, and say to
them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD," Behold, I will open your graves and
cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you
into the land of Israel. "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I
have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves,
My people. And I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life,
and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the
LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD. '"

So you see this picture of resurrection and restoration to the land is

related to the idea of what? Reversing the curse of sin. The curse of sin
means death, the curse of sin means what? Being cut off from God and
being cut off from His people. So Jeremiah is saying, “Look, one of the
blessings of the New Covenant is going to be that God is going to reverse
the curse of sin, and He is going to bring blessing to His people. They are
going to be revived. Don’t tell me you are cut off and dead and dried up.
I am going to revive you, and I am going to bring you back into the land.”
And listen especially to this line: “You will know that I am the Lord,
when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your
graves, my people.”

Now keep that in mind, and turn with me to Matthew chapter 27.
Matthew knows this. And so in conjunction with the crucifixion of
Christ, listen to what Matthew tells you in Matthew 27, verses 50-53, and
just remember the background: “You will know that I am the Lord your
God, when I have brought you up out of your graves.” Matthew 27, verse
50:

“And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom,
and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, and the tombs were
opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy
city and appeared to many.”

Now I don’t whether any of you have ever preached a sermon on that
passage, but you see what Matthew is doing there. He is giving a signal to
every Jew in the house, every Jew who is listening to this passage being
read as he describes the crucifixion, and he is saying. “Friends, Jesus’
resurrection and the accompanying resurrection of many of the saints
which occurred in that time frame is proof that what God promised to the
prophet Ezekiel has come about through the finished work of the Lord
Jesus Christ. ‘I have raised you up from you graves. Thus, you shall
know that I am the Lord your God, and I am restoring blessing.’”

So the reason that Matthew recounts that for you, is that he wants you
to understand what Jesus’ work has accomplished. It has accomplished
the fulfillment of that promise that had been given through he prophets
as long ago as Ezekiel in chapter 37. And that may help you understand
that strange passage which when you are reading in the context of
Matthew 27. You wonder, “Why in the world did you tell us that?” You
understand that in light of what the prophets had been promising would
be the nature of the restoration of blessing, so now it makes perfect sense
that Matthew would be zealous to connect it to Jesus’ resurrection. He
wrote that so you would understand what had been God’s instrument in
bringing about that resurrection. And of course, the redemption of our
bodies, a truth constantly repeated in the New Testament, not just here in
Matthew 27, but also by Paul in Romans 8, verses 22 and 23, and in I
Corinthians 15, is seen to be a direct fulfillment of that Old Covenant
promise of the full restoration of blessings. The resurrection is the
ultimate reversal of the curse of sin.

And so the New Testament sees the resurrection of the body as one
aspect of the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promise but the New
Covenant would entail a full restoration of blessing. The New Testament
sees the resurrection of the body as one aspect of the fulfillment of the
Old Covenant promise, that the New Covenant would be characterized by
a full restoration of blessing and a reversal of the curse of sin.

Thirdly, not only does the Old Testament prophecy of the New
Covenant look forward to a return from exile to the land in the broadest
sense possible, not only does it look forward to a full restoration of
blessing, it looks forward to a fulfillment of all previous covenant
commitments. God’s covenant commitments under David and under
Moses and under Abraham will all be enjoined simultaneously. Let me
say, that is not just a New Testament perspective. The New Testament
makes much of that; and the author of Hebrews makes much of that as he
mixes priestly promises, kingly promises, and prophetic promises in
connection with the work of Christ.

But it is not just the New Testament that does that; Ezekiel also does
that. Turn with me to Ezekiel chapter 37 again, and let’s look at that
passage that we previously read. And look in this passage for three
things: look for the emphasis on the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant,
the Mosaic Covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant. Listen.

“And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have
one shepherd;” Okay, we see the Davidic Covenant immediately. “And
they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe
them.” There is the Mosaic Covenant. And, by the way, the Davidic
Covenant itself had seen, and David had seen himself as fundamentally
responsible for implementing that kind of righteous rule in Israel, so this
is not something that Ezekiel is thinking up that is brand new. Over and
over, David is the one who tells you that he longs to see the statutes of
God, and the ordinances of God established amongst his people. But
Ezekiel stressing that in this New Covenant, in this everlasting covenant,
not only are we going to see the promises of the Davidic Covenant
fulfilled, we are going to see the promises of the Mosaic Covenant
fulfilled. “And they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant,
in which your fathers lived;” The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and
so we are already back to the promises of Abram and later of course, to
Abraham. “and they will live on it, they, and their sons, and their sons'
sons, forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever.”

So we are back to the Davidic Covenant, and to the rule of God

amongst His people. “And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it
will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and
multiply them.” “And multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their
midst forever.” That theme, of course, runs through every Old Testament
Covenant between God and His people. I will be your God, and you will
be my people. I will be near to you, I will be in your midst. I will
establish my sanctuary with you forever. “and will set My sanctuary in
their midst forever. "My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will
be their God, and they will be My people. "And the nations will know that
I am the LORD”

That last section there in verse 28 is a classic theme. Over fifty times
in the book of Ezekiel, that theme, that “they shall know that I am the
Lord” is repeated. It is a continual theme in the book of Ezekiel. Over
and over, everything that God does in the book of Ezekiel is why? So that
then they will know that I am the Lord. And He means that both
redemptively and in terms of judgment in terms of those who reject Him.
So we see here, all the previous commitments of the covenant reiterated.

Again, one of the emphases of Jeremiah’s New Covenant and of

Ezekiel’s New Covenant, we could also say of Isaiah’s New Covenant as
well, is a renewal of the heart. A renewal of the heart. Just for one
minute, let’s remember Jeremiah’s words, “I will put my law within them
and on their heart, I will write it.” The goal of this covenant is to
internalize, internalize the love of the law in the people of God. The love
of righteousness, the love of justice, the love of mercy, okay.

And that is the same theme that you see in Ezekiel. Look at Ezekiel
36. In verses 26 and 27, and by the way, you see it in this whole section
from Ezekiel 36:22 and following, but pick up in verse 26 and 27.
 “"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within
you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a
heart of flesh. "And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk
in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.”

So this heart renewal that Ezekiel speaks about is not unique to

Ezekiel. It was right there in Jeremiah 31 to begin with. And you see it
throughout Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Again, a central point of Jeremiah’s
New Covenant, Jeremiah 31 verse 34, is the forgiveness of sins. So
we have return from the exile to the land, full restoration of blessings,
fulfillment of all the previous covenant commitments, renewal of the
heart and forgiveness of sins. And this, by the way, is the most common
theme picked up on by New Testament writers with regard to the New
Covenant of Jeremiah. The forgiveness of sins. Look at how the author
of Hebrews will do it. He beats you over the head with this in Hebrews.
In Jeremiah 31, verse 34, we read.

“for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of
them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I
will remember no more."

And it precisely that theme of the forgiveness of sin that the author of
Hebrews is going to pick up on in Hebrews chapter 8 verse 9 and 10. For
instance, Hebrews 10, verses 17 and 18. Here is his quote of Jeremiah
31:34, the relevant section of verse 34. Hebrews 10:17.

“AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL

REMEMBER NO MORE." Now here is Hebrews commentary on that.
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any
offering for sin.”

And over and over that theme of the forgiveness of sins resonates in
this section of Hebrews and the very reason that the author of Hebrews
explains that Jesus’ mediation is superior is whereas, look at Hebrews
10:4, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins.” Whereas it is impossible for the Old Testament ritual system to
forgive sins, Jesus’ sacrifice does forgive sins. And where does he go to
prove that? Jeremiah 31. So he goes back and he sees Jesus’ work as the
New Covenant fulfillment of that Old Testament New Covenant
prophecy. It is Jesus’ forgiveness of sins, in His work which is the New
Covenant fulfillment of the Old Testament New Covenant prophecies.

Sixth, the theme of the reunion of Israel and Judah is one of the
themes of the Old Testament New Covenant prophecies. You see this in
Jeremiah 31, itself. Notice again, Jeremiah 31:27, “Behold, days are
coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the house of Israel and the
house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.” Now,
you know, how long have Israel and Judah been divided by the time that
Jeremiah is ministering? A long time. How long has it been since there
has even been a northern kingdom? The northern kingdom was overrun
a hundred years before this time. And yet central in Jeremiah’s vision is
not just the restoration of Judah, but the restoration of Israel as well. In
the picture there is, amongst other things, the uniting of all of God’s
people. God is going to bring them all together. And this is picked up
upon in Ezekiel. And again, this is even further removed from Ezekiel
who is prophesying while in captivity. In Ezekiel 34, for instance, you see
this and of course he is constantly using the language of Israel. But listen
to what he says in Ezekiel 34, verse 23, for instance.

“Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he
will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd.”

Now, throughout this passage, the emphasis in on them being what?

One flock that has been brought back from being scattered. So the idea of
him being one shepherd is very significant, because the last time there
had been one shepherd was when Solomon was reigning. Ever since, post
Solomon, there had been two shepherds at least reigning in and amongst
the peoples of God in the northern and southern kingdoms. And Ezekiel
is longing for the day when there is one shepherd. So this theme of the
reunion of Israel and Judah is significant.

Now the New Testament, in Acts 15 particularly, sees a lot of the

fulfillment of this theme in the bringing in of the Gentiles into the
Church. Amos picks up on this same theme in Amos 9 and speaks about
the restoring of the fallen tabernacles of David. And, James just takes
that passage and directly applies it to the bringing in of the Gentiles into
the church. And so again, that is another rich passage that you could
cultivate or rich theme that you could cultivate.

The Permanency of the Covenant

One last thing that is very obvious in Jeremiah 31 and that is the
permanency of this covenant. Jeremiah, himself, calls this covenant an
everlasting covenant and he stresses in Jeremiah 31 that one of the ways
in which the New Covenant would not be like the covenant of old would
be that it would not be broken.

Do you recall what is one of the fundamental theological questions

that the prophets themselves wrestle with? “If God has promised always
to be a God to us, if God has promised to give us the land, if God has
promised that David will reign over Israel forever, how can it be that we
can be sent into exile? Is that not an indication that God has somehow
not been faithful to what He clearly promised us in His covenant with
Abraham, His covenant with Moses, and His covenant with David?” This
is a huge theological problem for all the latter prophets. You see
Habakkuk wrestle with it, you see Jeremiah wrestle with it, and you see
Ezekiel wrestle with it. All the latter prophets wrestle with that
theological problem, because they are faced with the reality that they are
no longer in the land, and there is no David reigning over them. And they
actually live to see the day where there is not a Davidic heir reigning over
the southern kingdom. I mean, it is one thing to have a divided kingdom
and try to reconcile that with God’s promises. And it is another to be sent
off into exile and to have the Davidic heir cut off. How do you reconcile
all that with God’s promises? That is a fundamental prophetic problem.

And the prophetic answer to that is the New Covenant. And you ask,
and how can the New Covenant answer that? The prophetic answer is
this. We see that the nature of the Old Covenant itself, as God
originally constructed it, was intended to be transcended. God
never intended these Old Covenant forms to be the ultimate expression of
the promises that He made to us. Those promises will only be realized in
the New Covenant.

Now, by the way, can you see what an incredible evangelistic tool God
has placed in the hands of His faithful servants with that New Covenant
hope leading up to the coming of the Messiah? If that is where the
whole of your hope is now vested, in that New Covenant, can
you see how powerful that is when Messiah comes proclaiming
the Kingdom of God. It is here, it is in your midst. Now that
struck home to the disciples. It clearly did. And their very
wrestling with their contorted views of the kingdom of heaven
is proof of it.

This was the only hope of the people of God, the New Covenant. It
was the only thing that explained why in the world God had done the
things that He had done to the people of God in the Old Covenant.
Because that Old Testament itself, by nature, had been constructed by
God, so that at some point in time, it would become out outmoded and it
would be transcended by something far greater. And that of course, was
the New Covenant. And it is tied into the theme of the Kingdom of God
as well.

The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Covenants

And we will come back now after this little exercise and look at the
Holy Spirit in the Old and in the New Covenant.

If you have your Bibles I would invite you to turn to Acts chapter 2.
Acts chapter 2, verses 16 and 17, and look at Peter’s words in verse 16
where he quotes the prophet Joel in verse 17. Acts 2:16 and 17.

“But this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'AND IT
SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH
OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL MANKIND;”

Of course, in that passage, Peter using the “this is that” formula which
is a classic New Testament formula of fulfillment where it identifies a
particular event in redemptive history as the fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecy. And here, Peter goes to Joel 2, and he says, “if you
want to know what Joel meant in Joel 2, this is that.” And he is, of
course, referring to the events of Pentecost and the pouring out of the
Spirit at the Pentecost, the manifestation of tongues and all the other
things connected with it. That is the fulfillment of what Joel was
speaking of in Joel chapter 2. And of course, that inauguration of the
New Covenant era of missions in Acts chapter 2 and of the ministry to
Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth, by the Holy Spirit
is a hallmark of the New Covenant era of redemptive history.

This operation of the Spirit and the language there could even be read
to indicate that the Spirit had not been poured out prior to the giving of
the Pentecost of the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Now, why am I raising this problem? Because there are people, and
by the way, this is not just an issue between so called Covenant
Theologians, and so called Dispensational Theologians. This is an issue
of distinction between Reformed Theologians and Arminian Theologians
as to what was the role of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Covenant
with regard to salvation. And you find this if you read the book edited by
Clark Pinnock, on the doctrine of salvation, discussing the grace of God
and the will of man, and other books like that. The men who argue
against a Reformed doctrine of regeneration, that is that the Spirit must
take initiative and act in the regenerating of a human heart, these men
will argue that this is a distinctively New Testament phenomenon and
that is not the way that it worked in the Old Testament. So they will not
argue that regeneration was done a different way in the Old Testament
than it was done in the New Testament. They will argue that it didn’t
occur at all in the Old Testament. They will argue that regeneration is
distinctively a New Testament phenomenon exegetically. Now, so
obviously this point of how the Spirit functions under old and new
covenant is a broader question than just in the interesting warfare
between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. So we need to
understand this.

The Holy Spirit at Pentecost

And so, any attempt to understand the significance of the pouring out
of the Spirit at Pentecost must consider the two following factors

First of all, it is absolutely clear that the Holy Spirit was active in the
Old Covenant, in all the modes of His activity under the New Covenant.
We will mention a few in passing today. Pull out a concordance and look
at the function of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. The modes of His
activities are varied, just as varied as they are in the New Covenant.
 Secondly, it is clear as well that the Holy Spirit was active in the Old
Covenant like He was in the New Covenant from the ascription of the
writers of the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament
writers identify the work of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament to have
been done by the same one that they refer to as the Holy Spirit. Let me
just give you few examples of this. In II Peter, a passage that you are very
familiar with in terms of your doctrine of scripture, in II Peter, chapter 1,
verse 21, listen to what Peter says.

“for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men
moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Now we would have to do some work to determine what kind of

prophetic activity Peter has in mind there. But let’s just take for granted
for a moment, and I will build a case elsewhere that what he has in mind,
primarily is Old Testament prophetic activity, non just New Covenant
prophetic activity, but Old Covenant prophetic activity. Now, if that is the
case, you have Peter, here speaking about who is behind that Old
Testament prophetic activity? My Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit who
indwells me, He is being that Old Testament prophetic activity. Look
again, back at I Peter chapter 1. This makes it actually quite clear. This
establishes the question that we left open from II Peter 1:21. I Peter 1,
verse 10.

“As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that
would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know
what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He
predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed
to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things
which now have been announced to you through those who preached the
gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-- things into which
angels long to look.”

Now in that glorious little passage, Peter makes it crystal clear that the
prophets of the Old Testament who long to understand the full
significance of the utterances that were given to them, made those
utterances by, not just the Holy Spirit, but by that glorious title, the Spirit
of Christ. So, was the Holy Spirit active and operative in the Old
Testament? Absolutely. He was inspiring Scripture. He was inspiring
prophecy. The book of Hebrews, chapter 3, emphasizes His work in the
inscripturation of the Old Testament, when it says, and this is, if you have
ever studied B. B.. Warfield’s study of the phrases, you will have seen this
material before. But for instance in Hebrews 3:7 Scripture says, God
says:

“Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS
VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS”

Now you know that, that is a passage in the Psalms referring back to
an event in the Mosaic era. And yet, the author of Hebrews says, “the
Holy Spirit says, today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.”
And again in Hebrews 10:15, in Hebrews 10:15, this is especially
significant in light of what we have just been studying in Jeremiah 31.
Hebrews 10:15.

“And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, "THIS
IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE
DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND UPON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, "AND
THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO
MORE."

Now, of course, the latter phrase, introducing verse 17, is implied, but
the first section of ascription is not implied. It is the Holy Spirit that
gives us the promise of the New Covenant by the mouth of Jeremiah.
Matthew 22, is another example. Matthew 22, verse 41.

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a
question, saying, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?"
They said to Him, "The son of David." He said to them, "Then how does
David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY
LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,”

Again, David’s confession of the Lord as his Lord in the Psalms is

ascribed to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Mark chapter 12, again
records this incident. And Mark tells us the same thing. Jesus
answering, began to say, verse 35.

“And Jesus answering began to say, as He taught in the temple, " How
is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? "David
himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD," SIT AT
MY RIGHT HAND,”

Acts chapter 1 carries on this theme. Acts chapter 1, Peter is

explaining to the apostles the significance of the loss of Judas and the
necessity of replacing one of the apostles. Verse 16.

“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit

foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to
those who arrested Jesus.”

And of course, he is leading up to verse 20, which says,

“"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE

MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO MAN DWELL IN IT'; and, 'HIS
OFFICE LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE.'”

So Peter argues on the basis of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of that

Psalm, that Judas’ office must be replaced amongst the twelve. And then
again, Acts 28, Acts 28, verse 25.

“And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving
after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke
through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE
AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT
UNDERSTAND;”

So in all these passages, we see the inspiration of the Old Testament

prophets and writers ascribed to the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is
active in the inspiration of the prophets and writers and of the Old
Testament. But that is not all, for in Hebrews chapter 9, verse 8, the
author of Hebrews tells us that it is the Holy Spirit who authored the
ritual service of the sanctuary. Listen to what the author of Hebrews
says:
 “The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has
not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which
is a symbol for the present time.”

Now he has just spent several verses describing the tabernacle and
then he says, the Holy Spirit is signifying this. Indicating it was the Spirit
that instituted that ritual service of the sanctuary. Again, in Acts 7:51,
the leading of Israel in the wilderness and throughout its history is
ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Stephen says to the children of Israel
gathered around him in Acts 7:51:

“You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears
are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers
did.” Resisting the Holy Spirit.

It was in the Holy Spirit that Christ preached to the antediluvians.

And to those who lived before the flood. Now, this is a difficult passage,
but you will follow the argument here. Peter says, that Christ also died
for sins, once for all, I Peter 3:18:

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in
order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the
flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made
proclamation to the spirits now in prison,”

Now, if you understand what is meant by the first phrase, you don’t
get tripped up on some sort of view of Christ descending into Hades and
preaching the Gospel to those already in Hell. In the Spirit, He preached
the Gospel to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, verse 20,
but who are now imprisoned. That is, they refuse to repent. But it was in
the Spirit that He did that. This is a tough passage, but you get the point.

And then, in II Corinthians 4:13, II Corinthians 4:13, we are told that

the Holy Spirit was the author of faith in the Old Testament just like he
was in the New Testament, or is in the New Testament. II Corinthians
4:12:
 “So death works in us, but life in you. But having the same spirit of
faith, according to what is written, " I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I
SPOKE, "we also believe, therefore also we speak;”

Taking that Spirit as capital ‘S’ as opposed to merely a subjective

statement about our own character, the Spirit of faith.

And we could compile others, in which the Holy Spirit is said by New
Testament writers to be active in the Old Testament, but that is a good
start. Though the Holy Spirit is active in all those ways in the
Old Covenant, nevertheless, the change from Old Covenant to
New Covenant is often described in the New Testament itself,
as fundamentally being seen in just this: That the New
Covenant is uniquely the era of the Holy Spirit. And there are
certain passage that indicate that. A classic passage is John chapter 7,
look with me there. In John 7, verse 39.

“But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him
were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not
yet glorified.”

Listen to John’s words, “the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus
was not yet glorified.” Now here is John marking a tremendous
transition in redemptive history, from before the Spirit and after Spirit.
And by the way, the Greek is harder to understand than the English. The
English of your translations supplies the idea of the Spirit not being
given. That is not what the Greek says. The Greek just says, “the Spirit
was not yet.” You want to talk about an ontological problem, for your
doctrine of the trinity. There it is. Boom!

Now, this isn’t just a redemptive historical problem. Radically

discontinuity is emphasized in this passage. “The Spirit was not yet,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.” So you see this radical distinction
from before and after Pentecost, before and after the ascension of Christ.
The language is striking. And people seize upon that and they will use
that to argue that the Holy Spirit was not operative in the Old Testament.
You can see how they can misunderstand.
 And a similar passage is in John chapter 16, verse 7, in John chapter
16, verse 7.

“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I
do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send
Him to you.”

In John 20, verse 22, you get the idea that John has the agenda of
discontinuity here in describing the relation between the Old and the
New Covenants, John 20:

“And when He had said this” this is Jesus after the resurrection, “He
breathed on them, and said to them, " Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Now, how many expositors of Scripture have you heard go on and on

about how the disciples did not have the Holy Spirit until after the
Resurrection? And base it on just that passage? Did you see the radical
discontinuity that John is drawing there? He is drawing it for a reason,
and we need to pay attention to that reason. But recognize that it has to
be balanced against these other passages. And of course, the passage in
Acts 2, verses 16-17:

“In those last days, the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh.”

So the problem is to understand how the New Covenant can be,

by way of distinction, the unique era of the Holy Spirit, while at
the same time, acknowledging that the Holy Spirit was active in
all His modes under the Old Covenant.
Now, I think the short answer to that question is that the language of
discontinuity there has to be understood as a relative contrast in absolute
terms. A relative contrast in absolute terms. It is a contrast which is
significant and which no one in the Reformed community frankly, is
interested in playing down. That is part of the glory of the New
Covenant. None of us have a vested interest in playing down the
discontinuity of that language. But there are certain things that stop you
shy of taking that language without qualification. When you start saying
the Holy Spirit was not yet, prior to Acts 2, you get yourself into a
problem, that will get you kicked out of the Evangelical Theological
Society, or ETS. If you must be able to ascribe to the ontological trinity,
to be in ETS, then you are in trouble if you can’t.

So there are certain things that stop us short from reading that
language without qualification. And let me just give you a few of those
things that both show us the continuity and the discontinuity of the Holy
Spirit’s work in Old and New Covenant. In fact, I would like to give you
four of them. The fact is that the Scriptures on which we are dependent
for all our knowledge of the work of the Holy Spirit confine all their
declarations about the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament to the
people of God in the Old Testament in Israel. If we look at the function of
the Spirit in the Old Testament, we see that the modes of activity which
are described in detail are always in relation to Israel. So it is only within
and for the benefit of Israel that the Spirit of God works from Adam to
Christ.

And so the distinctive of the operation of the Spirit and the outpouring
of the Spirit is not in the newness of mode in which He is working, rather
it is because the operation of the Spirit is now expanded to all nations.
By the way, this in my opinion, is a key to understanding the language of
world, all, and many, in the New Testament. That language is always in
reference to the transcending of simply the people of God, considered as
that ethnic religious entity of Israel, to God’s work amongst even those
who are apart from the covenant and apart from the promises, the
Gentiles. So the New Covenant is the era of the Spirit. Whether we
consider the extent of the Spirit’s operations, the object of His operations,
the mode of administration of His kingdom, or the intensity of the Spirit’s
action. And it is those four things that I want to look at with you. I will
repeat those in just a minute. But those four things show you the
continuity and the discontinuity of the Spirit’s work in the Old
Testament.

First of all, the New Covenant, is the era of the Spirit because in it,
the Spirit of God is poured out upon all flesh. The New Covenant is the
era of the Spirit because in it, the Spirit of God is poured out upon all
flesh. It is a central idea of the New Covenant that it is worldwide in
scope. The period of preparation is over, and the worldwide kingdom of
God is now inaugurated. You see the missionary emphasis of Pentecost
in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant there. The worldwide
kingdom of God is now inaugurated and now the Spirit is to be poured
out upon all flesh. No longer was one people to be the sole recipient, but
the remedy of the Spirit was to be applied to all peoples. Now of course,
that doesn’t mean every last man and woman. Though, we might wish it
did. But now, the barrier of the nation and the nations has been broken
down. And all peoples will now come to Mt. Zion.

Secondly, not only is it poured out on all flesh, but secondly, the New
Covenant is the era of the Spirit, because now, is for the first time, the
object of the Spirit’s work is to recover the world from its sin. So it is not
just the extent of the Spirit’s operation, it is the object, it is the goal of His
operation. Listen to what B. B. Warfield says, “of course, this,” that is the
recovering of the world from sin, “this was the Spirit’s ultimate object
from the beginning, but during the period of preparation, it was only its
ultimate and not its proximate object.”

Its proximate object was preparation. Now, in the New Covenant, it is

performance. Then it was to preserve a seed, sound and pure for the
planting; now, it is for the reaping of the harvest. It required the Spirit’s
power to keep the seed safe during the cold and dark winter. It requires it
now to plant the seed and water it and cause it to grow into a great tree.
The Spirit is the leaven which leavens the world. In Israel, it was the
leaven laid away in the closet until the day of leavening came. When that
day came, and it was drawn out of its dark corner and placed in the heap
of meal, then the day of leaven had come. Or, to use the figure of Isaiah
during the days of the dark ages, when the kingdom of God was confined
to Israel, it was like a barrier in a stream. The Spirit of God was its life,
its principle during all the ages. And it was He that kept it restrained.
Now, the kingdom of God, is like that stream with the barriers broken
down. And it is the Holy Spirit that is driving it. So it is not just the
extent, it is the object of the Spirit’s operation that has changed.

Third, the New Covenant is the era of the Spirit because now, the
mode of administration of God’s kingdom has become spiritual. The
mode of the administration of God’s kingdom, has become spiritual. It is
not just that the extent of the Spirit’s work is broadened. It is not just
that the object of the Spirit’s work is now focused on His ultimate goal. It
is that the way that He administers this era is different.

Listen again, to what Warfield says. “In the old Dispensation, the
kingdom of God was in a sense of this world. It had its relation to and its
place among earthly states. It was administered by outward ordinances
and enactment and hierarchies. In the new dispensation, the kingdom of
God is not of this world. It has no relation to or place among earthly
states. It is not administered by external ordinances. The kingdom of
God is now within you. Its law is written upon the heart. It is
administered by an inward force. Where the Jewish ordinances extended
in the Old Testament, there was the kingdom of God. Where men were
circumcised on the eighth day, where they turned their faces to the
temple at the hour of sacrifice and where they went up to Jerusalem to
the annual feast, a centralized worship, we say, for the temple at
Jerusalem was the place where God might be acceptably worshipped,
they were of the kingdom. Now, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
the Church. Jesus’ words to the woman at the well are ringing in your
ears right now. “There will come a time, when neither in this mountain,
nor in Jerusalem, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is the church.”
Irenaeus and Ignatius tell us wherever the Spirit works, and He works
when and where and how he will, there is the Church of God, not just in
Jerusalem. But in Judea, and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth.”
Warfield goes on to say, “we are freed from the outward ordinances,
touch not, taste not, handle not, and are under the sway of the indwelling
spirit.”

Fourth, and finally, the New Covenant is the era of the Spirit because
now the Spirit works in the hearts of God’s people with a more prevailing
and a more pervading force. Of course, He regenerated and sanctified the
souls of God’s saints in the Old Covenant. We cannot doubt that He was
operating creatively and that He was powerfully present within them as
when David could pray, “create within me a new heart, and renew a right
spirit within me.” We must never forget, however, that while that is an
Old Testament prayer, it is of course, perfectly appropriate for New
Covenant Christians to pray. And yet, we are compelled to say that the
Spirit’s work in the New Covenant is more powerful and prevailing than
in the old. For in the New Covenant God not only promises to pour out
the Spirit upon all flesh, but He promises that He will pour Him out in a
special manner on His people.

Listen, again, to Warfield’s deductions from this: “Surely this must

mean much to us, that we live in the era of the Spirit. A Dispensation in
which the Spirit of God is poured out upon all flesh while extending the
bounds of God’s kingdom until it covers the earth and that He is poured
out in the hearts of His people so that He reigns in their hearts and
powerfully determines them to do holiness and righteousness all the days
of their lives. Because we live under this Dispensation, we are freed from
the outward pressures of the law, and have the love shed abroad in our
hearts and being led by the Spirit are His sons, yielding a willing
obedience and by instinct doing what is conformable to His will. Because
this is the Dispensation of the Spirit, we are in the hands of a loving Spirit
of God, whose work in us cannot fail. And the world is in His powerful
guidance and shall roll on in steady development, until it knows the Lord
and His will is done on earth as it is heaven. It is because this is the
Dispensation of the Spirit, that it is a missionary age, and it is because it
is the Dispensation of the Spirit that mission shall maker their
triumphant progress until the earth passes at last into heaven. It is
because this is the Dispensation of the Spirit, that it is an age of ever
increasing righteousness and it is because it is the Dispensation of the
Spirit that the righteousness shall wax and wax until it is perfect. Blessed
be God that He has given it to our eyes to see this, His glory, in the
process of His coming.”

Now you can’t miss Warfield’s post millennialism in that. But don’t
miss the blessing of what he is saying apart from that particular
eschatological issue. Don’t miss the blessing of what he is saying.
Because God is building His Church, and no matter what it looks like to
the eyes of the world, one day the unveiling will come and it is going to
be a glorious sight. All of us, eschatological perspective apart, all of us,
share in that view of the triumph. And it is something very encouraging
to us in the midst of the temple discouragement that we face in the New
Covenant era. When we see the Gospel resisted in the hearts of the
people that we preach to week after week and we wonder what are they
listening too? Am I up there and does it just sound like “Blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah? Did that get through? Did they not hear what I was
saying?” It is important thing for us to remember as we contemplate the
work of the Spirit in the New Covenant. That is a major biblical
theological issue. The whole issue of the role of the Holy Spirit. Warfield
has two articles. One In Faith and Life, his Sunday School lessons. There
is an article called The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and then in his
Biblical and Theological Studies he has a treatise on the Holy Spirit in
which he deals with the Old Testament. I commend both of them to you
as very helpful exegetical treatments at how the Spirit operates under the
Old and under the New Covenants.

Concept of Covenant in the New Testament

Now, what I would like to begin with you is an introduction to the
Covenant idea in the New Testament. We have already looked at that
passage in Hebrews 9 for what it told us about the New Testament
understanding about what a covenant is. But we really haven’t looked at
the other passages in the New Testament which pertain to the covenant.

The importance of the covenant idea to Old Testament studies is

beyond debate. But in New Testament research, conclusions about that
matter tend to be much more tentative. In fact, some scholars have gone
so far as to suggest that the idea of Covenant itself, was transformed or
became outmoded in early Christianity. Delbert Hillars, for instance,
who wrote a book called, Covenant, the History of a Biblical Idea, said
this: “The Essenes had a covenant, but it was not new. The Christians
had something new, but it was not a covenant. That is to say, to call what
Jesus brought, a covenant, is like calling conversion circumcision. Or
like saying that one keeps the Passover with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth, which is of course a direct quote from the New
Testament.” Now, why would this guy be so bone headed to say that, I
just don’t understand. For Christians, the coming of the substance made
shadows out of the rich array of Old Testament events, persons, symbols,
and figures. The reality brings the image to an end.

Now, his contention is fundamentally contradicted by the New

Testament itself, and the burgeoning scholarship on the subject and role
of the covenant in the New Testament indicates that Hillars' conclusion is
wrong. And as we survey the covenant idea in the New Testament, we
may not be able to give a full assessment of the significance of that
covenant idea in the various New Testament authors, but we can identify
theological concepts which they explicitly relate to covenant in their New
Testament writings. And we are going to restrict ourselves to the
passages were diatheke occurs.

Diatheke and Suntheke

Let’s begin by giving some words about the translation and meaning of
covenant in the New Testament. The word, diatheke, occurs
approximately thirty three times in the New Testament. Thirty times in
the singular, three in the plural. It is implied another six times. A rather
vigorous discussion of the proper translation of diatheke has been going
on for some time now. And so it is advisable for us to devote some
consideration to that matter. The debate concerns, whether in the New
Testament, diatheke is usually to be translated as covenant in the sense
of a contract or a binding agreement, is it to be translated as testament in
the sense of a last will or is it to be translated as disposition, a unilateral
divine decree or enactment. Those are basically the three options on the
market.

And that question is further complicated by certain connotations of

the English word, covenant, bargain, or contract. And the German word,
bunt, which can mean treaty or bargain or lots of other things too. Now
those who have argued for rendering the word diatheke in the New
Testament as testament or disposition have argued for that for both
philological and theological reasons. It is argued, for instance, that the
Septuagint and common Hellenistic usage is frequently appealed to as
grounds for not translating diatheke as covenant in the New Testament.

On the theological front, the rendering covenant is said to obscure the

unilateral character of the diatheke idea in the Septuagint and Paul. For
instance, Adolph Dismon, who favored the translation, testament as the
proper translation of all the passages where diatheke occurred,
maintained that in the Septuagint diatheke meant a one sided disposition
or more specifically a will and, but studies of Hellenistic literature
indicated that diatheke was almost universally understood in a
testamentary sense. He then argued, that the Septuagint and common
Hellenistic meaning of diatheke was Paul’s meaning. Of course, Dismon
was originally writing in German, and so his bunt gets translated into
covenant, implied bilaterally which compromises the Pauline doctrine of
grace.

Now that is his argument. If you translate it as covenant, you are

compromising the Pauline doctrine of grace, which raises question about
the whole theology of the Old Testament, I might add. But we won’t go
into that right now. Dismon encapsulates his linguistic and theological
reasons for insisting that diatheke be rendered as testament in this short
paragraph of Saint Paul, insisting that it meant in his Greek Old
Testament a unilateral enactment, or last will or testament.

This one point concerns more than the merely superficial question of
whether we are to write New Testament or New Covenant on the title
page of our Bibles. It becomes ultimately the great question of all
religious history: are we going to have a religion of grace or a religion of
works. It involves the alternative: whether Pauline Christianity, or
Augustinian, or Palagian. Now, that is one of the greatest overstatements
and mistakes in this area ever committed.

When Dismon was writing, it was indeed the consensus that

Hellenistic law and Hellenistic usage of diatheke supported an
understanding of testament as an appropriate translation for deithica in
the New Testament. But since Dismon’s time, we have uncovered a good
deal of Hellenistic material that shows that Dismon was too influenced by
the Hellenistic discoveries of his own time, not to mention influenced by
his own theological agenda. On the other hand, people like Behm have
argued that though they agree with Dismon’s emphasis on the one sided
character of the diatheke, we shouldn’t translate it as a testament. We
ought to translate it as a disposition. And there have been a variety of
arguments for that. Behm, for instance says, “the religious concept of
diatheke in the Septuagint represents a significant development of a
Hebrew term, even while preserving its essential content, to try and keep
the actual word covenant, which in any case is not really coextensive with
the Hebrew word, by adopting compromises like covenantal disposition,
or covenanted order, or ordinance.

Well, by introducing the alien thought of testament only obscures the

linguistic and historical basis of diatheke in the New Testament. Again, I
think Behm is completely out to lunch. Let me give you my arguments
against these. There are a number of effective arguments in responding
to these assertions by those who favor covenant as the proper translation
of diatheke

First, it has been suggested that the notion of testament, that is last
will and testament, never appears in the Septuagint in connection with
diatheke. Now, this isn’t just “Johnny-come-lately-me” coming along.
Multon and Milligan in their vocabulary of New Testament Greek, or a
vocabulary of the Greek Testament, respond directly to Dismon’s
contentions about the meaning of diatheke. And they say, we may fairly
put aside the idea that the Septuagint testament is the invariable meaning
of diatheke. It takes some courage to find that definition there at all.
Now that is Multon and Milligan. And recent scholarship has tended to
confirm that particular judgment. Mendenhall’s work, those of you have
worked on this from the Old Testament standpoint know G.E.
Mendenhall’s work on covenant. And his work on covenant has
confirmed this as well. You will find it in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of
the Bible. You will also find it in the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on
Covenant which he helped co-author. And he confirms this, that recent
scholarship indicates that testament is not a good translation of diatheke
in the Septuagint. And if that verdict is accepted, then obviously, the case
for testament as the usual rendering of diatheke in the New Testament is
substantially weakened. If your main argument is been, the word
covenant means for Paul, what it meant in his Greek Old Testament, and
then you show that the Greek Old Testament never means testament
when it uses diatheke, then you have a got a real problem trying to prove
that Paul meant testament.

The second argument, against the idea that diatheke should be

translated disposition in the Septuagint and also in the New Testament.
It has been argued that the term covenant adequately conveys the
unilateral character of the relationship without losing sight of its bilateral
aspect. You remember we have said all along, you can’t have a covenant
in solitude. There has to be mutuality. There have to be two to have a
covenant. And E. D. Burton, the great author of the commentary on
Galatians, has observed that the Old Testament concept of covenant
carried the suggestion of both divine initiative and mutuality. And he
concludes his study of diatheke in the pre-New Testament writings with
these words. This is truly a great summarization. And if you are
interested in this, you will find it in Burton’s commentary on Galatians,
page 500. But here is what he says:

“From the usage therefore, of the writers before the New Testament,
or approximately contemporaneous with it, there emerged two distinct
meanings of the word, diatheke. Testament, or testamentary provision is
the most frequent use of diatheke in the classical writers. It is the
invariable sense in Josephus. The meaning covenant is very infrequent in
the classical writers, but it is the almost invariable meaning in the
Septuagint, in the Old Testament Apocrypha, both translated and
original, in the Alexandrine, and in the Palestinian. It is the meaning in
the Sudapigrapha. It is the meaning in Philo. The essential distinction
between these two meanings is that in a testament, the testator expresses
his will, as to what should be done after his death, especially in respect to
property. The covenant is an agreement between living persons, as to
what should be done by them while they are living. It is of prime
importance to observe that in the diatheke, the birith, between God and
men so often spoken of in the Old Testament, the initiative is with God.
And the element of a promise or command is prominent, but, it still
remains essentially a covenant, not a testament.

In their emphasis on the former fact, some modern writers seem to

lose sight of the latter. And I think that is one of the most brilliant
summarization of this problem that has ever been put forth. People will
argue, “See, it’s promissory, it’s promissory, therefore, it is not a
covenant.” Of course it is promissory. God initiated it. It doesn’t mean
there is no mutuality to it. So you don’t have to retranslate covenant to
testament to emphasize the divine initiative in it.

So the translation of covenant is more adequate than the

translation testament, because, it signifies a relationship
established between two living parties, not one live one and one
dead one. And it is preferable to the translation, disposition, because it
denotes a binding relationship with attendant responsibilities and a
disposition doesn’t necessarily involve a divine binding relationship with
attending responsibilities. So both testament and disposition fail to
convey the concept of mutuality inherent in the Septuagint usage of the
diatheke.

Two further matters are worth noting. First, it has often been argued
that we ought to translate diatheke as a disposition or a testament
because of the reason that the Septuagint chose diatheke to translate
birith. Have you ever heard that argument made? That the reason we
know how to translate diatheke is because we know the reason why the
Septuagint chose to translate birith as diatheke and not suntheke. Have
you ever heard anyone stress that suntheke is used in Greek to talk about
treaties, diatheke is often used to talk about last wills and testaments, and
so the Septuagint chose diatheke because it wanted to stress, not the
bilaterally, but it wanted to stress the unilateral nature of an Old
Testament birith. So when the Septuagint guys are sitting down, trying to
figure how we translate birith, they chose diatheke because it was more
unilateral than suntheke. The essential distinction between the two, is
suggested that the former, diatheke is one sided, while the latter,
suntheke is two sided.

And it is further argued that the Septuagint translation actually

develops the meaning of the Hebrew term. And on the basis of that
reason, some have rejected covenant as a suitable translation, because it
entails a bilateral meaning. But again, that argument over stretches the
implications of the inferences on which it is based.

Should that distinction between diatheke and suntheke be the only or

primary consideration in determining what the Old Testament means, or
the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament means when it uses
diatheke. Does that rule out the possibility of diatheke involving an
aspect of mutuality. Let me appeal to the Old Testament scholar Walter
Eichrodt. Eichrodt maintained that the Old Testament use of the
covenant concept in secular life argues that the religious birith was
always regarded as a bilateral relationship. For even thought the burden
is most unequally distributed between the two contracting parties. This
makes no difference to the fact that the relationship was still essentially
two sided. The idea that in ancient Israel, the birith was always and only
thought of as God’s pledging Himself, to which human effort was
required to make no kind of response can therefore be proved to be
erroneous. In fact, in all the passages, we have seen so far, everywhere
there is a pledge of God, there is a corresponding human response. So, by
choosing deithica, was the Septuagint trying to exclude that kind of
mutuality? I think that is just outlandish.

And anyway, D.J. McCarthy, who has no vested interest in this fight,
says we don’t know the Septuagint chose diatheke to translate birith as
opposed to suntheke. So, we are inferring why they translated it, and
then we are trying to use it as an argument against translating another
way. And I think that is stretching it.

J.C. Henley has said this. We must not allow the Septuagint choice of
diatheke to obliterate the fundamental idea of a compact leading to a
mutual relationship. While, birith in its religious use, certainly means a
relationship founded by God, and determined by Him, it nevertheless,
signifies a wideness and richness of relationship which is lost, when you
translate it as a decree or an ordinance or a disposition or a testament.

We can ask whether or not the objections of Dismon and Behm, and
Cutch, and others have raised against the translation of diatheke, really
apply to the English word, covenant. Very often, the idea is that the
English word, covenant, implies bargaining with God about something:
You scratch my back, I scratch yours. And it is very interesting that
James Barr, himself, no great defender of evangelicalism says this: “In
talking about biblical covenant on the other hand, I suspect that this word
is for the most part, is for most users, something of an empty word. In
itself, it does not convey anything specific. Such content as it has, comes
from the provisions to be read in the context of the biblical passages.”

So for most people, you are going to have an opportunity to introduce

them to this concept for the first time. You can fill out the gaps there.
And if that is the case, then a key objection to translating to diatheke is
covenant is erased, when we conclude that the English covenant proves
sufficiently flexible, to convey both the divine initiative and the mutually
binding relationship, which is to often overlooked in the covenant.


The Covenant
in the Synoptics, Acts and Pauline Writings
We have already looked at definitions of covenant and we have, or
definitions of diatheke and berith, and the arguments over that
translational controversy. And we have looked at one passage in the New
Testament in some detail, the passage in Hebrew 9, which is difficult to
translate. Many Bible translations will start in 9:15, with the word
covenant, and they will switch to testament and then back to covenant
again by the time they get to verse 18. But we have really not done a New
Testament survey of covenant language, and I think that one benefit of
doing such a survey is you can see the bare bones outline of a very clear
New Testament covenant theology.

Many people, especially those people influenced by the Neo-Orthodox

biblical theology movement, and those influenced, frankly, by very
modern and trendy contemporary views of hermeneutics, are skeptical of
Covenant Theology, thinking that it does, too much does damage to the
nuances and subtleties of the text and tries to force everything into a
mold. I think simply by surveying the occurrences of covenant in the
New Testament, you will see that. A Covenant Theology is very much
woven into the fabric of the New Testament and all its dimensions. And
so I would like to review that language with you. And we will begin in the
synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in Acts.

Covenant language in the Synoptic Gospels

So let’s start by looking at the covenant language found in the Gospels,
that is the synoptic Gospels, and Acts. There are thirty-three occurrences
of the Greek word, diatheke, in the New Testament writings, and
seventeen of them are found in the epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews far
and away uses the explicit languages of covenant more than anyone else.
Nine are found in Paul’s writings, in the ‘Pauline corpuses’ as New
Testament scholars say. They often say that because they are doubtful as
to whether Paul wrote all of those letters. I do not use that term in that
way. I am not doubtful as to whether the apostle Paul wrote the letters
ascribed to him. I say that because when you see that language, often
times a New Testament scholar is wanting to avoid even commenting
whether he believes Paul wrote something or not. So when I say ‘Pauline
corpuses,’ I am just using it for convenience so I don’t have to list every
epistle that Paul wrote. So there are nine occurrences of diatheke in the
Pauline writings. There is one occurrence of diatheke in the book of
Revelation. And there are six occurrences of the term diatheke in the
synoptics and Acts. In reviewing these passages, my purpose is going to
be to observe the authors’ theological use of the term covenant. How is
he using, why is he using, what is he doing, when he uses that term
covenant?

So, let’s pick up now in Acts. The Abrahamic Covenant, the Abrahamic
Covenant is mentioned explicitly three times in Luke’s Acts. Viewing the
Gospel of Luke and Acts as if it were part one and part two of a
thematically unified work by Dr. Luke. We see the Abrahamic Covenant
mentioned three times in that two part set of writings. The first
occurrence is found in what people call the Benedictus, that is the hymn
of Zacharias, Luke 1:68, where it is announced that the Lord has visited
us and accomplished redemption for his people. You may want to turn
there and look at the context as we go along in these various passages.
Now, in that passage, in which Zacharias is singing praise to God, he goes
on to say, Luke quotes, thus far, in Luke 1:72 and 73, that this redemptive
visitation that is referred to in verse 68, remembering that He has visited
us and accomplished redemption. That redemptive visitation, according
to Luke, was in order to show mercy towards our fathers, and to
remember His holy covenant, diatheke, hagias, autou, His holy
covenant. The oath, the orkon which he swore to Abraham, our father.
So that passage alludes to Psalm 105: 8-10 and verse 42, and that passage
views redemption, New Testament redemption, the whole complex of the
birth of John and the birth of the Lord Jesus. This new visitation that is
occurring at the time of the advent of Christ is viewed as God’s faithful
response to His covenantal promise to Abraham.

Paul is not the person who came up with that idea. That is something
which Paul learned from the Gospel tradition. Now even if you viewed
the Gospels as being written after the early epistles of Paul, that is fine, I
have no problem with that particular projection, but you have to
understand that Luke’s Gospel tradition predates Paul’s formulation of
his theology. Now, maybe it did help Luke to have been hanging around
with Paul as he was looking for some of this information, but note that
the information upon which Paul’s formulation of Christianity as the
fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promises, predates Paul ever formulating
that. That is very important to recognize, because there are still people
today who want to insist that Paul invented Christianity as we know it.
But the basic thrust of Paul’s arguments in Galatians about the fulfillment
of the Abrahamic Promise, it is there already, here you see in Luke. It is
there already in the data which Luke quotes for us in his Gospel.

Now, another passage, Acts 3:25, Acts 3:25 contains a similar

connection. Peter is preaching form the portico of Solomon there. And
he says to the crowd, “it is you, who are the sons of the prophets, and of
the covenant which God made with your fathers. Saying to Abraham, in
your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Here it is to be
noted that Peter is addressing the men of Israel, whom he identifies,
how? As sons of the Abrahamic Covenant.

This passage gives a slightly altered reading of the Septuagint version of

Genesis 22:18. And in the context of the sermon that Peter is preaching
links the coming of Christ to what? To the Abrahamic Promise. For as
God covenanted with Abraham, diatheke is used there, as God
covenanted with Abraham that in his seed, all the families of the earth
shall be blessed, and goes on to argue, so “He sent the Christ, to bless you
by turning every one of you from your wicked ways,” verse 26. So God
covenanted with Abraham, that in his seed, all the families of the earth
shall be blessed, so He sent the Christ to bless you, by turning you from
your wicked ways.

H. A. A. Kennedy, who was a New Testament professor as Edinburgh,

early in the Twentieth Century, says, “here the covenant idea of the Old
Testament as exemplified by the promise made to Abraham is regarded
as consummated in the blessing brought by Christ, the servant of the
Lord. It is the blessing of complete deliverance from sin, which means
unbroken fellowship with God.”
So again, I am wanting you to see that right here, woven into the fabric of
Luke and Acts, in a passage that it would be very easy for us to read
through the Gospels and skip over and miss the significance of, is a
Gospel writer recording in the events surrounding the advent of Christ,
and in the first proclamation of the Gospel after the Pentecost, a linkage
between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Gospel of Grace itself.

You may recall when we started off, the very first sentence I spoke in the
class, was to give you Mark Dever’s definition of Covenant Theology:
“Covenant Theology is just the Gospel.” That is not an overstatement.
Right here are the very heart of the Gospel presentation, as revealed in
the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts, we see, God’s covenant
designs woven in to the plan of salvation, as revealed by the New
Testament prophets and apostles, not just the Old Testament, but the
New Testament prophets and apostles.

One other passage in Acts, chapter 7 verse 8, where the Abrahamic

Covenant is referred to there again, this time, with the sign of
circumcision in view. The narrative which recounts Stephen’s speech
before the Sanhedrin links the Exodus to the Abahamic Promise. You’ll
notice that in Acts 7, verses 17, 25, and then 32-34. This narrative links
the Exodus to the Abrahamic Promise and views the Covenant
Circumcision as promissory of Isaac’s birth.

Verse 8, for instance, reads this way: “And he gave him the covenant of
circumcision, diatheken peritomes, the Covenant of Circumcision. He
gave him the Covenant of Circumcision, and so, Abraham became the
father of Isaac. And he circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac
became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve Patriarchs, and so,
the Covenant of Circumcision looked to the provision of offspring for
Abraham, which was of course, crucial to the fulfillment of God’s promise
that Abraham’s seed would posses the land. So Stephen points you in
this direction here in Acts chapter 7.

Now, these three passages are important because they provide clear
examples of the New Testament term, diatheke, being used in the Old
Testament sense of berith, not as “last will and testament,” but in every
one of these cases it is used as a covenant, as a berith. They also,
manifest Luke’s connection between the redemptive visitation of the
Messiah and the Abrahamic Covenant. In Luke’s mind, the coming of
Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, is directly connected to the Abrahamic
Covenant. These passages also allude to a link between God’s fulfillment
of the Covenant of Abraham, and the forgiveness of sins. So there is a
link between the fulfillment of God’s Covenant with Abraham and the
forgiveness of sin.

Let me give you the verses to look at to see those linkages. It is not quite
as clear as the others, but I think you will see the linkages there in the
context of the argument. In Luke 1, if you will look at verses 72, 73, and
77, you will see the flow of argument connecting the Covenant of
Abraham, its fulfillment, and the forgiveness of sins. You will also see
this in Acts 3, verses 19, 25, and 26. Now why is that significant? Well, of
course later on in the book of Hebrews, this will be one of the major
emphasis that the fulfillment of the New Covenant. And one of its
essential central features is what? The forgiveness of sins. So that the
whole New Testament idea of the forgiveness of sins - and how much
closer you could get to the very heart of the Gospel proclamation - is
directly related to what? The fulfillment of Covenant promises in the Old
Testament.

Now, Luke’s record of the Song of Zacharias furnishes sufficient evidence

that it is incorrect to say, that in the synoptic tradition there is no
suggestion of covenant thought except in the narratives of the Last
Supper. That is claimed by a gentleman named R.V. Moss, who wrote a
book on the covenant conception in early Christianity. He makes that
claim, “that you don’t find any covenant thought anywhere except in the
Last Supper narratives,” in that particular thesis that was done at the
University of Chicago a number of years ago. And I am sure there are
others who would hold those same sentiments. That is incorrect. We are
just restricting ourselves to those explicit interests. I am not saying this is
all the evidence you could find. I am just saying you that can’t ignore this
evidence. It is right there, it as plain as the nose on your face.

However, I will not argue with the fact that those Eucharistic narratives,
those Last Supper narratives, those Lord’s Supper narratives are of first
importance in explaining and in providing testimony of Covenant thought
in the synoptic Gospels. As we approach the three supper accounts found
in the Synoptic Gospels, it is going to be our purpose to discern the
theological significance of the Covenant idea in these respective texts.
Matthew’s form of the Eucharistic words, the words of institution, if you
will, over the Supper, is usually recognized to be a slight revision of
Mark’s account. I don’t know what your positions are on Gospel
criticism, but that is sort of a standard view. Matthew’s words, are a
slight revision of Mark’s account. In Matthew’s narrative, the cup word,
and by the way, I will use over and over, the “cup” word, and the “bread”
word. That is just short hand for referring to Jesus’ words of institution
over the cup and Jesus’ words of institution over the bread. I am not
trying to be fancy, it is just short hand. It is a way of abbreviating. So the
cup word, and the bread word, refers to Jesus’ explanations and words
accompanying his giving of the cup and his giving of the bread. In
Matthew’s narrative, the cup word, reads as follows, “drink from it, all of
you, for this is My blood of the covenant.” To haima mou tes diathekes.
This is My blood of the covenant which is poured out for many, for the
forgiveness of sins. You will find that in Matthew 26, the second half of
verse 27, and into verse 28.

There are at least three observations worth mentioning concerning the

covenant idea in that passage. So let’s begin with Matthew. Matthew 26,
second half of 27, and verse 28.

The "Covenant" in Matthew's cup word.

First, this phrase, this is my blood of the covenant, to haima mou tes
diathekes, recalls the words of the sacrificial inauguration of the synoptic
covenant recorded in Exodus 24:8. Moses inaugurating the covenant at
Sinai speaks words almost identical. In Exodus 24:8, the terminology is,
“behold the blood of the covenant, to haima tes diathekes.” That is the
Septuagint rendering “which the Lord has made with you.” Here, Moses
sacrificed young bulls, and after reading the book of the covenant in the
presence of the people, he sprinkled the blood of these slaughtered beasts
on the people, declaring that sprinkled blood, to be the blood of the
covenant. Thus, the covenant was ratified.
In Matthew’s narrative, then, the significance of the cup, or its contents,
that which it is setting forth, that which it is representing, is relating in
some way to the blood sprinkled in ratification of the Mosaic Covenant.
Now that is just clear as the nose on your face. Matthew is relating this
now to Exodus 24:8. That is the first thing I want you to see.

Second, and following on that previous point, you may note that
Matthew’s text differs from the Septuagint in the addition of only one
word to the phrase, mou, so that the cup is said to represent not simply
the blood of the covenant, but Christ’s blood of the Covenant, “My blood,”
Christ is speaking the words. This explicit connection between Jesus’
blood and the blood sprinkling at Sinai points to an understanding of
Jesus’ death as a covenantal sacrifice.

I. Howard Marshall expands on that very thought in his book on the Last
Supper narratives, if you are interested in following that up, you will find
that on pages, 91-93. Douglas Moo, says, this, “the covenant sacrifice of
Exodus 24:8, is a unique a foundational event implying, perhaps, the
taking away of sins as a necessary prelude to relationship with God, but
emphasizing more strongly the establishment of fellowship.”

It has been pointed out, that the narrative of Exodus 24 is the only
sacrificial ritual recorded in the Old Testament in which the blood was
sprinkled on the people. Furthermore, Jewish tradition ascribed atoning
sacrifice to this blood. It is not, therefore, with an ordinary
sacrifice that Jesus connects His death, but with a unique
atoning sacrifice that emphasizes the ultimate involvement of
those who participate. You see the richness of Jesus’ words now.
What is He doing? He is giving a pre explanation of what is going to start
happening on the next day to his disciples. Perhaps they miss it
completely that night and the next day and the day after, and even the
day after. But eventually they understand the significance of what Jesus
says. That is the second thing.

Thirdly, in Matthew’s cup word alone, we find the phrase, “for

forgiveness of sins,” eis aphesin hamartion, “for forgiveness of sins,”
which serves to indicate the purpose of the shedding of the blood of the
covenant, and perhaps suggestive of Isaiah 53:15, or of Jeremiah 31:34.
Both passages, of course, connect the covenant idea, the idea of the
Suffering Servant and sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins. Isaiah 53:12,
Jeremiah 31:34. Here again we have a connection between the covenant
idea and the forgiveness of sins.

The "Covenant" in Mark's cup word.

Mark’s form of the cup word, is as follows: “This is my blood of the
covenant, to haima mou tes diathekes. The same formula as before, but
now, “which is poured out for many.” As we have previously mentioned,
this seems to be the precursor of Matthew’s cup word, and was
apparently based on a primitive tradition in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Joachim Jeremias argues this in his book on the eucharistic words of
Jesus. So does I. Howard Marshall. We may note again the presence of
the allusion to Exodus 24:8, and the addition of the term, mou, which is
essential to the illusion that Jesus is making.

Now, we have not yet commented on the phrase found in Matthew and
Mark, “which is poured out for many.” But let’s look at Mark’s form of
that phrase “which is poured out for many,” Ekchunnomenon huper
pollon, which is poured out for many. It has been suggested that this is a
word of explanation, reminescent of Isaiah 53:12, in the form that it is
found in the Massoretic Text rather than the Septuagint form, Isaiah
53:12. This points to the eminent vicarious death that Jesus by which
Jesus would establish the covenant.

The "Covenant" in Luke's cup word.

We turn to Luke’s cup word now, Luke 22, second half of verse 19, and
verse 20. There we are faced with a textural problem which warrants a
brief consideration. In a small number of texts, Luke 22, 19b and 20, is
omitted. And despite strong manuscript support for the longer reading,
there have been scholars, who have preferred the shorter reading. In
support of the shorter reading, it is probably the harder of the two
readings, and so reasonably favored, according to the cannons of textual
criticism. One of the rules as you know, that most modern textural critics
operate by is this rule: a shorter reading is always preferred to a longer
reading, and a more difficult reading is preferred to an easier reading.
And that maybe more difficult theologically, or it may be a difficult
reading in terms of other factors, however, on behalf of the longer
reading, let me point out first of all, briefly, the weakness of the
manuscript evidence for the short reading. I. Howard Marshall says, “a
point of particular importance is that the manuscript evidence for the
short reading is poor. It consists of only one Greek manuscript, D. some
Latin versions, together with some Syriac and Coptic evidence for
rearranging the verses and a variant reading with only one Greek
manuscript, and a decidedly erratic one, in its favor, is decidedly weak.”
Jeremias agrees. So there is the first thing. The manuscript evidence is
weak.

Second, the strength the strength of the manuscript support for the
longer version is impressive. The long form is attested by all the Greek
manuscripts, the earliest, being P. 75, which was drafted somewhere
between 175 and 225. So all the Greek manuscripts, except D, have the
longer reading. All the versions, with the exception of the Old Syriac and
the part of the Itala, and also all the early Christian writers, beginning
with Marcion, Justin, Tatian, follow this. So you have overwhelming
external evidence for the longer reading that you have today, in all of your
translations. You may have a textural note in some of them indicating
that these verses may be disputed, but that is why all of your versions in
English today will have the longer reading. There is very strong a
testation.

Let me say one other thing. It can also be argued that the presence of two
cups in the longer form, the last cup of the Passover Supper, and then you
have got the cup of the Lord’s Supper, that the presence of two cups in the
longer form of Luke’s narrative, constitutes as difficult a reading, as the
reversal of the bread cup order constitutes in the shorter form. And in
fact, that may be the explanation for the shorter accounts. Perhaps
somebody came along, noticed two cups in the account and said, oops, I
better correct that, lops out one of the cups, and ends up with a reversed
bread, cup order that actually has conflated the end of the Last Passover
and the administration of the Lord’s Supper. You know, he meant well, it
just proves if you are a scribe, don’t think, just write. So, it is not
unreasonable to support the longer reading as the original form.

Now, I do that because Luke’s passage is so important that if you are

going to argue with somebody someday over the theological significance
of it, you don’t want to be undercut by somebody saying, “Well, that is
textually dubious anyway.” Well, if it is textually dubious, then about 98
percent of the New Testament is textually dubious. Our consideration,
then, of Luke’s cup word will proceed on the presupposition of the
authenticity of Luke 22, verses 19 and 20. Luke’s cup word, reads as
follows, “this cup which is poured out for you, is the New Covenant in My
blood,” E kaine diatheken en to haimati mou. That is Luke 22:20.

There are three things I would like you to see, relating to the covenant
idea in Luke’s cup word. First, Luke’s account includes the emphasis on
the vicarious nature of Jesus’ action for you. It is poured out for you, as
say Matthew and Mark. They emphasize that vicarious action by what
phrase? “For many.” So Luke uses the term for you, Matthew and Mark
use, many, but the point is the same: this is a vicarious sacrifice.
And this of course relates to Jesus as a covenantal sacrifice.

Second, in distinction from Matthew and Mark, Luke identifies the cup
with the New Covenant. Matthew, Mark take you to Exodus 24, while
Luke identifies the cup with the New Covenant, apparently, looking back
to Jeremiah 31, verses 31-34, the significance of which is that Christ’s
death is seen as fulfillment and realization of Jeremiah’s New Covenant
prophecy and promise. At first glance, this illusion to Jeremiah 31 in the
cup word, may seem to set Matthew and Mark’s account and tradition
which is arguably drawing on Exodus 24:8, over against Luke and Paul’s
tradition. We will see this when we get to Corinthians. You know, Luke
and Paul are going to have a similar form. So, do we have two traditions
of Jesus’ saying? Jeremias again, however, sees Luke’s wording, “the
New Covenant in My blood,” as explanatory of “My blood of the
covenant,” rather than contradictory of it.

Obviously, in all the passages in the Gospel, where Jesus’ sermons and
words of teaching are recorded, we clearly have an outline form of them.
And the authors are accurately representing something that Jesus no
doubt said to the disciples in a significantly longer discourse. That He
would use both phrases in the context of that discourse, one to explain
the other, makes perfect sense. You do it all the time. Every time you
preach, every time you teach, every time you engage in a theological
discussion with someone, you will give a phrase, you will it slightly
differently later, you will explain it later. There is no contradiction at all.
Douglas Moo observes that “while the covenant in Matthew/Mark is not
specifically identified as new, it is idol to deny that that concept is
implicitly present in Jesus’ claim that a covenant in His blood is about to
be ratified. It has to be new, because it is going to be ratified in His
blood, and He wasn’t around in Exodus 24:8.” So there is a New
Covenant happening in Matthew and Mark, just as surely as there is in
Luke.

It seems likely then, that Jeremiah 31, verses 31-34 is in the background
of Matthew and Mark’s cup sayings, as well, as Luke’s cup word. Y.K.
Yoo, a Korean scholar, wrote a thesis at the University of Durham on the
usage of the New Covenant passage in Jeremiah in the New Testament.
And here is what he says, “with regard to the close connection between
the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 and following, and that in the New
Testament, it is important to note that the Old Testament allusions to the
cup word, indicate that the writer of the Synoptic Gospels and Paul
understood the New Covenant established by the blood of Jesus by
relating the event, not to Jeremiah 31: 31 alone, but to Jeremiah 31:31
and following in combination, with other Old Testament texts. In other
words, the fulfillment of the promise of the New Covenant of Jeremiah
31:31 and following in the New Testament does not seem to have been
conceived of as one to one, rather, this fulfillment can be understood by
relating the significance of the death of Jesus to Jeremiah 31, in light of
other Old Testament covenant texts.

His argument is simply this: It is not that you simply go back to Jeremiah
31 and see this straight shot from Jeremiah 31 right into Luke’s Last
Supper account. It is that Jesus’ death is linked to Jeremiah 31 in the
eyes of the inspired author as Jeremiah 31 relates to other Old Testament
covenant passages, so you are drawing forward actually a cluster of Old
Testament texts and testimony, rather than just one in isolation. I think
that is a helpful comment. The significance of this is that Christ’s death is
seen as the fulfillment and realization of Jeremiah’s New Covenant
prophecy and promise. This is where we started out.
Furthermore, we may note that Luke’s allusion to Jeremiah’s New
Covenant prophecy neither excludes the possibility of reference to
Exodus 24:8, nor prevents him elsewhere from explaining Christ’s death
in relation to the Mosaic economy. So just because Luke relates Jesus’
explanation of His death to Jeremiah 31, that doesn’t keep Luke
elsewhere from relating the work of Christ to the Mosaic Covenant. As an
example, think of Luke’s account of the transfiguration. Jesus appears in
His glory, Luke 9:31, talking with Moses and Elijah. Here Luke seems to
be looking to the Exodus event when he says, and they were speaking of
His Exodus, ten exsodon autou, which He was about to accomplish in
Jerusalem.

So again, Jesus’ work of death in Jerusalem is related there to the

Exodus. Douglas Moo, argues this in his thesis on the passion narratives.
And Moo is no friend of traditional Covenant Theology. Moss, I believe
argues this. The context argues that more is meant by exsodon than
departure. The context clearly is redemptive historical.

Third, we may suggest a connection between the covenant idea and

Passover, as it relates to the Lord’s Supper in Luke. We may suggest a
connection between the covenant idea and the Passover in Luke as in the
other synoptic Eucharistic narratives, where Jesus’ words, “My body, and
My blood” appear. Jeremias has argued that those words designate the
component parts of a slaughtered sacrificial animal: body, blood. So
when Jesus applies these words to Himself, He is speaking of Himself as
a sacrifice. Listen to Jeremias again in his book, Eucharistic Words of
Jesus, page 222. “Jesus is applying to Himself terms from the language
of sacrifice as is also the case with the participial poured out,
ekchunnomenon.” Poured out. You will find it in Mark 14:24 for
instance. Each of the two nouns presupposes a slaying that has separated
flesh and blood. In other words, Jesus speaks of Himself as a sacrifice.
This is My body, this is My blood. So, when Jesus uses those words, He is
speaking of Himself as a sacrifice.

Furthermore, it is likely, given that the context in which Jesus is speaking

those words is what? - a Passover meal - that Jesus is referring to
Himself as the Paschal lamb. He is referring to Himself as the Passover
lamb. Let me go again to Douglas Moo’s comments: “ It would not be
surprising if Jesus and the evangelists appeal to the Passover traditions in
their explanation of Jesus passion, in as much as this tradition was
supremely influential in Jewish theology and often was regarded as a
prefigurment of the eschaton.” And Jeremias says this: “With the words,
den bisri, this is my sacrificial flesh, and den idmi, this is my sacrificial
blood, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of Himself as the
Passover lamb. He is the Eschatological Passover lamb representing the
fulfillment of all of that which the Egyptian Passover lamb and all the
subsequent sacrificial lambs were the prototype.

So, if that is the case, then it is possible to argue that the synoptic writers
understand Jesus’ death as the Passover sacrifice which establishes the
New Covenant. Jeremias says this beautifully on page 226 of his book,
let me quote again, “Jesus describes His death as this Eschatological
Passover sacrifice. His vicarious huper, vicarious death, brings into
operation, the final deliverance, the New Covenant of God.” Diatheke
Covenant is a correlate of basileia ton autanon.

Now that is an amazing statement by a non-seventeenth century covenant

theologian. Listen to what he says: Diatheke is a correlate of of basileia
ton autanon. The what? The kingodm of heaven. He has just related
covenant to the kingdom of heaven idea in the Gospels. Now, do
you know what that opens up for you when you go back into the Gospels?
The covenant concept is now related to all of Jesus’ explanations and
exhortations relating to the concepts of the kingdom of God and the
kingdom of heaven. You have just opened up a huge new world of
Gospel interpretation based on that correlation. But, and this is
Jeremias speaking, “Covenant is a correlate of kingodm of heaven. The
content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus death is
perfect communion with God in his reign based upon the forgiveness of
sins.”

Summary of "Covenant" in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.

Our survey of covenant thought in the synoptics and Acts suggest the
following points. One, the Christ event in Luke and Acts. And
remember, many scholars, will use the phrase, “Christ event,” to avoid
commenting on whether they believe in the historical incarnation, death,
resurrection, of Christ, because that would mean that there is something
that happened there that was significant, but we are really not sure. The
Christ event. That is not how I am using it. I am using it as short hand to
refer to the totality of Christ’s life and ministry, resurrection, ascension,
etc. The totality of that event, because it is all inextricably connected, the
incarnation with the atonement, the life with His passive obedience, or
His penal obedience on the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension to
the value of His death, etc. So when I say, “Christ event,” I am talking
about that whole complex; I am not giving you liberal double-speak, I am
speaking of that whole complex of what Christ did. The synoptics in Acts
relate the Christ event to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. As
Jeremias observes, “When Luke 1:72 says that God remembers His
covenant, this means that He is now fulfilling the Eschatological
Covenant promise.”

Two. More specifically, in Acts 3:25, the coming of Christ is seen as the
fulfillment of God’s promise to bless the nations through Abraham. In
the context of both Luke 1:72, and Acts 3:25, the idea of forgiveness of
sins is present and is understood as part of the fulfillment of the covenant
promise to Abram.

Third. In Matthew and Mark’s cup words, the words of explanation, “My
blood of the covenant” allude to the institution of the Mosaic covenant in
Exodus 24:8. And Jesus’ death is understood as a covenant inaugurating
sacrifice, which provide the atoning basis for a New Covenant
relationship between God and His people.

Fourth. In Matthew 26:28, the covenantal sacrifice is explicitly said to

bring about the forgiveness of sins. In addition to the elusion to Exodus
24:8, which has already been noted. Isaiah 53:12, or Jeremiah 31:34b,
seem to be in the background, thus amalgamating the idea of the
fulfillment of the New Covenant with the Isianic servant concepts. So
now, you see a bringing together of the idea of the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic Covenant, the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s New Covenant, and
now, the Isianic servant passages, all linked together. Even I. Howard
Marshall, the last living Arminian sees this. The concepts of the covenant
and of the Suffering Servant, who bears the sins of the many, fit in with
one another and form a unified hole. There is a fundamental unity
between them, which means that they belong together theologically and
neither of them need be regarded as a secondary development of an
originally simpler interpretation of the death of Jesus. That is an
incredibly important statement. In any case, the connection here
between the covenant idea and the forgiveness of sins, is unambiguous.

Fifth. In Matthew and Mark’s cup word, we also see a connection

between Isaiah 53:12 in the phrase, “Poured out for many.” This provides
further evidence that the synoptic writers related the covenant idea to the
suffering servant idea.

Sixth, Luke’s cup word explicitly identifies the cup with the New
Covenant. Luke 22:20. It is possible to argue, then that it looks back to
Jeremiah 31:31 and 34 and that Luke understands Jesus’ death as
inaugurating the New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. The presence of
an allusion to Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke’s cup word, does not rule out
the possibility that it may also recall Exodus 24:8, and it is not
implausible to argue that Luke elsewhere explains the death of Christ in
terms of the Exodus. Luke 9.

Seventh. In both the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul traditions, the
Eucharistic words and their context suggest that Jesus was understood as
the Passover lamb. I. Howard Marshall, again, “The death of Jesus was
probably associated with the Passover sacrifice in the context of the
Lord’s Supper. This conclusion can be drawn from I Corinthians 5:7. If
this is so, then for the synoptic, a connection is established between the
significance of the Passover and the Last Supper. That is, as the Passover
recalls that the blood of the slaughtered lambs established the covenant
and delivered Israel, from destruction, so also, the supper signifies that
Jesus’ sacrificial death as the Passover lamb brings the ultimate Passover,
Redemption from sin in the establishment of the New Covenant.”

And so, it may be argued that in these Eucharistic narratives, the synoptic
authors see in the Passover, and in the Exodus in general a pattern for
Jesus’ work of deliverance. Spiritual, redemptive, covenantal
deliverance. Nevertheless, Passover imagery is conspicuously absent in
the synoptic Gospels outside of the Supper narratives. And it is John’s
Gospel that refers to the Passover most clearly. Now, you can argue that
the same reason why Jesus avoided Messianic terminology in public
preaching motivated this. And it makes perfect sense then, if John’s
Gospel is a later Gospel, that he would be prepared to address this as the
church is established than would the early Gospel writers in their
accounts of Jesus’ public ministry.

Eighth, the covenant idea is at the very heart of the meaning of the cup
word in each of the synoptic's Eucharistic narratives. Covenant
terminology is present in the words of interpretation of each. This is
indicative of the importance of the covenant idea in the synoptic writers
understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ death. And how much closer can
you get to the heart of the Gospel, than the meaning of the Lord Jesus’
death? And here is what tied up with that - the covenant. You can’t
understand Jesus’ death, without covenant theology. Covenant Theology
supplies the very heart of the explanation of the meaning of your Lord’s
death.

Ninth, and finally, we may note that in each of these passages, in the
synoptics and in Acts, where diatheke is employed, the context argues for
diatheke to be translated as covenant, and there are absolutely no
compelling contextual reasons for understanding it as a last will and
testament.

The Covenant in the Pauline Writings

Romans
Romans 9:4 is one of only three passages in the New Testament where
covenant appears in the plural. Diathekai. And all three of those
passages where covenant appears in the plural are Pauline. The
ambiguity of this rather exceptional plural usage has caused some
consternation amongst commentators as they try to determine exactly
which covenants Paul is referring to. A commentator named Rotesell has
suggested that diathekai is here to be understood as ordinances,
commandments, or perhaps oaths. James Dunn, who I don’t normally
quote approvingly, I think rightly says that, that is an unnecessary or
unjustified translation. And Dunn, himself, in the W.B.C. commentary
that he wrote on Romans 9-16 suggests that Paul is either referring to the
covenant given to Abraham, and renewed to Isaac and Jacob, or he says,
even more likely, and this is a shocker, to the Old and New Covenants, a
surprisingly traditional sort of interpretation for a radical guy like Dunn.
But then again, he wrote that commentary back in 1988, and he has been
moving ever since.

Most commentators, however, do not share Dunn’s enthusiasm for that

latter interpretation. That is, the idea that it refers to the Old and New
Covenants, and see here a reference to the Patriarchal covenants. Let me
give you a list of some of the commentators that do that. Headlum, in the
I.C.C. International Critical Commentary Series, in the Commentary on
Romans Monk, in his book, Christ in Israel, and Zisler, in his
commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans. John Murray, in his
commentary on the Romans, understands Paul’s reference as either to
the two distinct covenantal administrations of Abraham, or to the
Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants. But most people see this as a
reference to the Patriarchal covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The references to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which immediately follow
this mention of the covenants, would seem to support that kind of
reading in indicating the various extensions of the Abrahamic covenant.

Whatever the case may be, our primary concern with this passage is to
note two ideas of Paul’s connected with those covenants. First, Paul says
that these covenants belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh,
Israelites. Second, along side that assertion of the privileges of ethnic
Israel, Paul stresses that the legitimate descendants of Abraham and the
heirs to the promise are not children of the flesh, but children of the
promise. There are other books surveying Pauline literature that are
almost always easier to read, but Ritterboss has some rich stuff. Listen to
what Ritterboss says on pages 354-356 in his book on Paul, translated by
one of our former faculty members, Dick Dewitt. Ritterboss says this,
“the remarkable thing is that while Paul’s pronouncements on faith and
belonging to Christ as the only criterion of what in an enduring sense may
count as the seed of Abraham, seem to warrant the conclusion that
natural Israel has lost its function in the history of redemption in every
respect.” But he, himself, time and again, feels the need to guard against
the thought of such an exclusion of imperial and national Israel as the
people of God and to deny it as not consistent with the historical election
of Israel.

Now no matter what your eschatological views are, I think that is an

interesting comment. Paul’s statements here are certainly antagonistic in
the sense that one of the classic marks of Marion and the Gnostics was to
deny that Israel ever sustained a unique relationship with the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And clearly, Paul wipes that out here in
Romans 9, verses 3 and 4. In Romans 11, verse 27, we find the only other
usage of diatheke in the book of Romans. Paul quotes from Isaiah, “and
this is My covenant,” e par emou diatheke. Literally, “this is the
covenant from Me with them when I take away their sins.” The first half
of the verse, the first half of the phrase is verbatim from the Septuagint
version of Isaiah 59:21. The second is close to Isaiah 27:9, again from the
Septuagint.

Here, covenant is mentioned in a context here where Paul is discussing

the election of Israel. We may make two observations about the covenant
idea in this passage. First, it is explicitly linked to the forgiveness of sins.
In this case, Romans 11, 27, it is linked to the forgiveness of the sins of all
Israel, to whomever that refers. And we won’t get into that argument
right now. Second, Paul’s emphasis here is clearly on God’s faithfulness
to His covenantal promises. That is, the unilateral aspect of God’s
covenant is in view. God’s covenantal initiative brings forgiveness, it
Removes ungodliness from His people. John Murray, with a beautifully
nuanced phrase says this, “in a way consistent with the concept of
covenant, the accent falls upon what God will do.” In a way consistent
with the concept of covenant, the accent falls on what God will do. Yes, it
is a two sided relationship. But the accent falls on what God will do.

I Corinthians
Let’s turn to the Corinthian epistles, and look first at Paul’s account of
the Lord’s Supper, in I Corinthians 11. Since we have already given some
consideration to the covenant idea in the synoptic Eucharistic narratives,
our treatment of Paul’s cup word in I Corinthians 11:25 is going to
relatively concise. The text reads this way: “This cup is the New Covenant
in “My blood,” e kaine diatheke estin en to emo haimati, “Do this as
often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” The first clause is very close
to the reading we found in Luke 22:20, but the second is a distinctive part
of Paul’s cup word.

Here, just as in Luke’s explanation, the cup is said to represent the

inauguration in the New Covenant, by the blood, that is, by the death of
Christ. And so Paul’s account also alludes to the covenant inauguration
by sacrifice in Exodus 24:8, and to the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s New
Covenant. Paul’s cup word, however, does not include a phrase parallel
to Luke’s “poured out for you.” You remember, we said that explicitly
indicated the vicarious nature of Jesus’ death. Nevertheless, the concept
of Jesus’ vicarious death, His death on our part, is clearly implied, both
by comparison with Paul’s bread word, in chapter 11, verse 24, which says
what? “For you.” And in Paul’s understanding of Jesus as the
eschatological Passover lamb, evident in I Corinthians 5:7, “For Christ,
our Passover also has been sacrificed.”

As previously mentioned, “do this in remembrance of Me,” is unique

among the cup sayings, though it is found in both Paul’s and Luke’s
bread words. A.R. Mallard sees in that memorial emphasis, that
remembrance emphasis, a recollection of the ancient covenant formula,
or, as the covenant ritual is enacted, you are to remember the basis of its
establishment. Whatever the case may be, it serves to remind us that the
supper is about the significance of the Lord’s death, which is reiterated by
Paul in the phrase, “as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes,” verse 26.

II Corinthians
When we turn to II Corinthians 3, we encounter for the first time, in
our present survey of diatheke in the New Testament writings, a
comparison between the New Covenant and the Old. Here, Paul is
commending his ministry to the Corinthians, and he says, “our adequacy
is from God who also made us adequate as servants of a New Covenant,
diakonous kaines diathekes. Servants of a New Covenant, not of the
letter but of the spirit, “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” II
Corinthians 3:5b and 6. The verses which follow expand on the theme
that is announced there. In the phrase, “servants of a New Covenant,”
Paul is again drawing on Jeremiah 31, verses 31-34. By this appeal to
Jeremiah’s New Covenant, Paul defines the character of his ministry. As
Moses was God’s minister of the Old Covenant, established at Sinai, so is
Paul a God’s minister of the New Covenant, which was prophesied by
Jeremiah and established in Christ’s death.

Indeed, the very mention of his new covenant ministry sets the stage for
the comparison of the old and the new administrations of God’s
redemptive plan that is going to follow in His argument. In chapter 3,
verses 7-11, Paul, demonstrates the superior glory of the service of the
New Covenant, by pointing to distinctions between the older ministry and
the new. According to Paul, the Old covenant administration was a
ministry of three things: death, verse 7, condemnation, verse 9, and
transient glory, verse 11. Death, condemnation, transient glory. The new
Covenant administration is one of spirit, verse 8, righteousness, verse 9,
abiding glory, verse 11. It is significant, but not necessarily remarkable
that Paul is here to contrast the old and the new covenants. Geerhardus
Vos, in his Biblical Theology, page 301, says this of Paul’s argument
here: “Paul, is in the New Testament, the great exponent of the
fundamental bisection in the history of redemption and revelation, thus,
he speaks not only of the two regimes of law and faith, but even expresses
himself in consecutive form of statement after faith is come, Galatians
3:25, it is no wonder then, that with him, we find the formal distinction
between the new diatheke and the old diatheke.” Here also to be sure, we
have in the first place, a contrast between two religious administrations,
that of the letter and that of the Spirit, that of condemnation, and that of
righteousness.

Now, because of the diversity of scholarly opinion concerning Paul’s

conception of the Old Covenant, his understanding of the relationships
between the Old and the New Testaments, or the Old and New
Covenants, his view of the Mosaic law, the precise meaning and
implications of his bold distinction here between letter and spirit, these
matters warrant at least brief consideration in so far as they pertain to
our understanding of the covenant. Paul, it seems to me, in his
discontinuity, in his dichotomy here, is often been over read by people.
They have read more into Paul than there is there with regard to
discontinuity. Our Dispensational friends, it seems to me, especially, and
our Antinomian friends especially.

In chapter 3, verse 14, Paul speaks of the reading of the Old Covenant, tes
palaias diathekes. Now some interpreters have suggested that Paul
means by that phrase, not the Mosaic writings themselves, but a legalistic
self righteous attitude in the handling of those writings. Now, let me just
stop and say just a couple of things about that.

We Reformed folk, when we come to a passage like this, are naturally

reactive to those who want to drive a hard wedge between Old Covenant
and New Covenant and basically break in part the covenant of grace, and
see the Covenant of Grace as merely a New Testament thing. And so
while our hearts are pulled towards reading Paul, in as much continuity
as possible, the problem with that is, sometimes you lose the emphasis
that Paul, himself, wants to give you. You can rest assured that Paul is
not going to be against your construct of the continuity of the Covenant of
Grace. Just let me put your hearts at ease on that. And having put your
hearts at ease about that, you can let Paul have as much rhetorical force
as he wants to have here, because Paul wants to stress discontinuity right
now.

Let me give you some example of Reformed expositors who have, I think,
not caught Paul’s emphasis, because they are so concerned to stress
continuity between the old and the new. Buswell, in his Systematic
Theology of the Christian Religion, says, “Paul is not distinguishing the
Old covenant writings, and the New Covenant, he is distinguishing a
misreading of the Old Covenant writings and the New Covenant.” Now,
surely that kind of thing, is criticized in the New Testament. Jesus
constantly criticizes the Pharisees’ reading of the law, though He never
brings strictures against the law of God. So, that kind of thing certainly
happens in the New Testament.

But is that what Paul is doing? Wilbur Wallace also argues that the Old
Covenant does not indicate a body of Scripture, per say, here, but takes
on a special disparaging ironic sense, expressive of unbelief’s distorted
understanding of those scriptures. Robert Rayburn attempts to argue
that in his Ph.D. dissertation from the University of Aberdeen, entitled,
The Contrast Between the Old and the New Covenants. The problem
with this, is it leaves you with a flat view of covenant continuity, where
there is no redemptive development. Old covenant, new covenant, it is
just the same. There is no development.

Paul wants to stress discontinuity at this point, and there are good
reasons for our not reading Paul in this suggestive way. Paul is not
contrasting Old covenant, the Mosaic Covenant writings of Moses, with
the New Covenant. He is contrasting a legalistic, self righteous attitude
as you read those writings with the New Covenant. There are good
reasons for not understanding Paul’s use of the term, Old Covenant, in
that way. First, the passage makes it clear that the Old Covenant here is
something that can be read. Look at the context again. The Old
Covenant here is something that can be read. Now, look, you can read
Moses, and misunderstand him, but you can’t read a legalistic attitude
expressive of a misunderstanding of Moses. You may have a legalistic
attitude expressive of a misunderstanding of Moses as you read Moses,
but you can’t read a legalistic attitude expressive of a misunderstanding
of Moses. So whatever Paul is talking about here, he is talking about
something you can read.

Second, Paul’s parallel in verses 14 and 15 between the phrases, “the

reading of the Old Covenant,” and “whenever Moses is read,” strongly
argues for an understanding of Old Covenant here as Mosaic law. The
Mosaic law. Consequently, when Paul alludes to the economy of the Old
Covenant here and elsewhere, he is speaking of the redemptive
administration typified by the giving of the law at Sinai. The redemptive
era, that redemptive administration, typified by the giving of the law at
Sinai. In connection with II Corinthians 3,

Delbert Hillars has suggested that Paul contrasts the Mosaic and the
Christian economies so sharply that there is no apparent continuity left
between the Sinai covenant and the New Covenant in Christ. Now, of
course, that is precisely what those reformed guys that I just quoted to
you were attempting to protect against. That type of a break up where
Paul is saying, well, Old Testament, that doesn’t have anything to do with
us, Moses’ law, that doesn’t have anything to do with us in the New
Covenant. And that is wrong too. That is the other extreme problem.
A closer look at this passage reveal that despite Paul’s obvious stress on
discontinuity, between these two redemptive administrations, the Mosaic
and the New, there is an underlying continuity that is necessarily
assumed by Paul. For instance, Paul, is insistent that the old
administration reflected the glory of God. Look at verse 7 and then
compare it with verse 18. It reflected the glory of God. He uses an a
minori ad maius argument, from the lesser to the greater. He employs
that argument in this passage, and that assumes the continuity of Old
Covenant glory and New Covenant glory. You can’t say lesser and greater
if they are of two different kinds or genera. Lesser to greater assumes
continuity, even if the emphasis is discontinuity. For example, you can’t
say, “I used to have fewer apples, and now I have more oranges.” I mean,
you could say that, but the linear nature of the argument would make no
sense. You have got to have something of the same kind to use that type
of argument from the lesser to the greater. Alongside of the contrasts of
verse 7 and 8, e diakonia tou thanatou, the administration of death, and
the e diakonia pneumatos, the administration of the Spirit, and the
contrast of verse 9, Condemnation and righteousness, with the contrast
of verse 11. Paul repeatably argues “if-then.” If then the Old Covenant
was glorious, how much more glorious is the New Covenant? Do you see
the continuity there? “If that was glorious, this is more glorious.” It is
not, “no glory to glory.” It is “less glory to greater glory, of the same
kind.” Repeatedly, “if-then.” Eide. Verse 7, Eide, verses 9 and 11. If the
Old Covenant was glorious, how much more, pos ouchi mallon, verse 8.
Pollo mallon, verses 9 and 11. If then, how much more glorious is the
New Covenant? The difference then, between the two economies is in the
degree of glory. The Old Covenant was glorious. Glorious indeed. So
glorious that the sons of Israel could not even look on Moses face. But by
comparison, the New Covenant super abounds in glory. It is misleading
to say then, that for Paul, the New Covenant is the opposite of the old.
Wrong.

There has also been much discussion over Paul’s attitude over towards
the Mosaic law, as evidenced in his comments in II Corinthians 3. R. V.
Moss, for instance, says that “Paul spoke disparagingly of the written
code and the reading of the Old Covenant.” Referring of course, to the
Jewish law. But, a close review of the passage will reveal that Paul never
criticizes the Mosaic law. His concern throughout is to demonstrate the
superiority of the New Covenant economy, which is characterized by the
letter, written by the Spirit on human hearts, and hence, designated as
the ministry of the Spirit. And some sort of an absolute discontinuity
between letter and spirit cannot be sustained either, because what is it
that the Spirit writes on our hearts? The letter of the law of the Old
Covenant.

So Paul is concerned to show the superiority of the New Covenant

economy over the Old Covenant economy. The Old Covenant economy
was characterized by the letter of the law written on tablets of stone. The
New Covenant is characterized by the letter of law, written on the tablets
of our hearts by the Holy Spirit. So his point is not to depreciate the law.
The law which had been externally administered in the Old Covenant, has
now been internalized by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant.

The closest thing to disparagement of the Mosaic law comes in verses 14

and 15. Where Paul speaks of the veil at the reading of Moses. But even
there, it is arguable that Paul’s criticism is of the veil which remains,
rather than the law itself. Those verses are notoriously difficult. Knox
Chamblin grapples with this in his article, “The Law of Moses and the
Law of Christ,” in Feinberg’s book, Continuity and Discontinuity. And
he argues that “that veil over the reading of Moses is removed in Christ.”

Finally we may note that Paul’s contrast between the letter and Spirit has
produced some curious interpretations. The estimable Robert Grand, for
example, suggests that “Paul means by letter the literal verbal meaning of
Scripture, and that by Spirit, he means the freedom which the spirit
brings in exegetical freedom.” Bizarre. He argues, in other words, the
only way to understand the Old Testament is under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, who removes the veil of literal legalism from the minds of
believers. The Spirit gives exegetical freedom. He destroys the tyranny of
words. He makes possible a Christian exegesis of the Old Testament
intuitive rather than based upon words.

Paul’s distinction between letter and Spirit, as Cohen has pointed out, is
not unlike that made by Filo and others between the literal and the true
meaning. Wrong. That sounds like the deconstructionist’s dream for the
apostle Paul. Now, Robert Grant, a New Testament and Patristic scholar
usually knows better than that. But how he got into that, I don’t know.
He did this in his book, The Letter and the Spirit. Now, this view hardly
does justice to the context of Paul’s discussion in II Corinthians 3 which
shows absolutely no concern with establishing principles by which to
interpret the Old Testament Scriptures.

Paul is not teaching us new exegetical tricks here. Rather, Paul is

appealing to the Eschatological glory of the New Covenant, as the
grounds for the adequacy of his ministry to the Corinthians. As Victor
Paul Furnish has said, “the description that Paul gives of the New
Covenant does not so much reflect his hermeneutical perspective on the
law, or Scripture in general, as it does his eschatological perspective on
God’s redemptive work in history.”

Galatians
Now, turning from Corinthians, let’s go to Galatians 3. Here, we first
encounter a passage in which the meaning of diatheke has been
disputed. In Galatians 3:15, Paul says, “Brethren, I speak in terms of
human relations, even though it is only a man’s covenant, diatheken, yet
when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
Now, in some of your translations, that passage may be translated as
testament or will, or last will and testament. So the diatheke there,
instead of being translated covenant, may be translated as a testament or
a will.

But in the context, Paul is arguing that the Law of Moses, the law of the
Mosaic economy does not nullify the terms of the covenant previously
established with Abraham. That is his point in verse 17. In the process,
he appeals to the example of a human diatheke. A human covenant. And
that has lead many interpreters to suppose here that Paul intends
diatheke not to be understood as covenant, but as testament, since,
testaments would have been more common in the Greek world in Paul’s
day, than would covenants. So, even worthy commentators like, F.F.
Bruce, will argue here in Galatians 3:15, “Since it is a human analogy that
Paul is using, diatheke in this immediate context is likely to have had its
current secular sense of will, testamentary disposition, rather, than it
distinctively biblical sense of covenant.” However, Paul’s appeal to the
sphere of human relations does not rule out the possibility that he is
referring to a covenant rather than a testament between men, of which
there are many Old Testament examples:
I Samuel 20, Genesis 21, Genesis 31. Paul’s argument depends, and this
is even more important, depends on diatheke in verse 15, being the same
kind of diatheke as he is speaking about in verse 17. And the reference in
verse 17, is absolutely, certainly and clearly a reference to God’s berith
with Abraham. The understanding of diatheke as covenant in verse 17,
then favors a rendering of covenant in verse 15. E.D. Burton, who in his
commentary on Galatians, of all the people I have read on this issue,
Burton has a clearer grasp of the linguistic issues involved than anyone.
And his commentary was written a long time ago. Burton has an
appendix in which he deals with this and he also deals with it in the
context of the passage. Let me just read you a snippet of it. Burton
argues, “by diatheke must be understood, not testament, not stipulation,
not arrangement, in a sense broad enough to cover both will and
covenant, but as the usage of the New Testament in general and of Paul in
particular, and of the context here require covenant in the sense of the
Old Testament berith. Paul’s argument again here is from the lesser to
the greater. It is clear enough. If it is absolutely improper to tamper with
a human diatheke, then a divine diatheke surely cannot be nullified or
modified.”

In verse 17, Paul continues the same line of argument. “What I am saying
is this, the law which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not
invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the
promise.” It is the Abrahamic Covenant to which Paul refers here. If you
will look at verses 14, 16, and 18, his point is that the Mosaic Code, the
Mosaic law, given at Sinai did not alter the covenant promise given to
Abraham and his seed, which promise Paul has already argued has come
to the Gentiles in Christ. Furthermore, Paul says, if the stipulations for
receiving the inheritance promised to Abraham were modified by the law
of Moses, then God’s covenant promise to Abraham was contradicted.

Now, here, Paul’s opposition of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic
law is so sharp that he pauses to clarify that relationship in verses 19-25.
Paul makes two negative assertions, concerning the relation of the law to
the Abrahamic promise in verse 3. He has already stressed first, that the
law does not invalidate the covenant so as to nullify the promises, verse
17. And he adds a second thing to that in verse 21, that the law is not
contrary to the promise. That is, since the Abrahamic Covenant entailed
a promised blessing which Paul says was the gift of the Spirit, for it is the
blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant, the gift of the Spirit. And since that
covenant, provided that its promise was to received how? - through faith,
verse 14 - and since a covenant cannot be modified, verse 15, then Paul
argues, the coming of the Mosaic law doesn’t do either of two things: one,
it does not make invalid the Abrahamic Covenant. It doesn’t make
invalid the Abrahamic Covenant by adding law fulfillment as a condition
for receiving the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, because the
promise is entailed and assured in a previously ratified covenant that
cannot be changed; and secondly, the law does not provide an alternative
way to receive the same blessing.

Paul’s third and final usage of diatheke in Galatians occurs 4, chapter 4

verses 21-31. Here he sets out an allegory, that is the term that he uses,
but don’t think that Paul is using allegory in the sense that we normally
think of it. This is not Pilgrims Progress; this is typology. He sets out a
typology of two covenant, the duo diathekai. And you will see that in
verse 24. Paul contrasts, again, Moses’ covenant, the Covenant of Sinai,
and the New Covenant. The former is by the bond woman, Hagar, verse
24, is according to the flesh, verse 23, leads to slavery, verse 24 and 25.
The latter is by the free woman through the promise, verse 23, and leads
to freedom, verses 26, and you will see this again in chapter 5, verse 1.

In this passage, Paul may be intending to censure the Judaizer’s

misunderstanding of the function of the Mosaic law in God’s redemptive
economy, as evidenced by his antithesis between the present Jerusalem
and the Jerusalem above. Whatever the case, though, Paul’s connection
of freedom, the promise, and the Spirit to the New Covenant is absolutely
evident. The only other place where diatheke occurs in Paul’s writings is
found in Ephesians 2:12. That passage, speaking of Gentile believers
reads, “remember, that you were at that time, separate from Christ,
excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” the
plural, ton diathekon tes epangelias.

The Covenants of Promise, may like Romans 9:4, indicate the various
Patriarchal administrations of the Abrahamic Promise. In the context at
least two things should be stressed which relate to the covenant concept.
First, the Gentiles, by the blood of Christ, have become recipients of these
covenantal promises according to Paul. Westcott, for instance, “the
Gentiles were brought into the same position as the chosen people in the
blood of Christ.” The second is that by virtue of Christ’s covenantal
death, the Jews and the Gentiles have in Christ been made into one. One
new man. One body. One household. One building.

Summary of the "Covenant" in Paul.

Let’s summarize Paul then. Eleven points of summarization. There is,
you can see already, more there than you would guess. And we are just
scratching the surface. First, in II Corinthians, Paul sees his ministry as
based on the realization of the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah. As
Moses was the messenger of a covenant characterized by the law, so
Christ, or so Paul is the messenger of a New Covenant characterized by
the Spirit.

Second, according to Paul, this New Covenant was established by the

death of Chris, I Corinthians 11:25. That is, Jesus in His sacrificial
death effected the New Covenant relationship and all its attendant
blessings which had been predicted by Jeremiah. Elsewhere, Paul speaks
of Christ’s death in Passover terms.

Third, the New Covenant is, for Paul, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic
Covenant. Paul makes this clear in his identification of Christ as
Abraham’s seed, to whom the promises were given. This can also be seen
from Paul’s view of the nature of the Abrahamic blessing in the ministry
of the New Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant entailed a blessing for
the Gentiles, and that blessing, according to Paul, is the gift of the Spirit,
Galatians 3:14. The New Covenant ministry, the ministry of the Spirit, is
based on the realization of the promise of the Spirit.
Fourth, Paul uses the covenant idea to provide structure for his
presentation of redemptive history. He identifies three covenants, points
of epochal significance in God’s dealing with man: The Abrahamic
Covenant, Galatians 3:17; the Mosaic Covenant, Galatians 4:24; and the
New Covenant, II Corinthians 3:6. Those covenants, in turn, indicate
different economies in salvation history.

Fifth, when I gave this to Knox Chamblin to work over a few years ago,
Knox felt that I was emphasizing that this was the only way that Paul
structured his redemptive history. That is not what I am asserting. I am
simply saying that this is a way that Paul structures his redemptive
history. And there are other ways, for example, in Romans 5, the
Adam/Christ parallel. What I am going to argue later on is that you have
to relate that Adam/Christ parallel to this covenantal structure, or it
makes no sense.

Fifth, Paul does not designate these economies as covenants, but refers to
them by implication. Before faith came, there was the Mosaic Economy,
Galatians 3:23. Now that faith has come, there is the Christian Economy,
Galatians 3:25. When Paul employs the term, Old Covenant, in II
Corinthians 3:14, he means the Torah, or that covenant of which the
Torah is the typical event, or essential event. When he speaks of New
Covenant, as in II Corinthians 3:6, he means the New Covenant
established by Christ. And by that, I mean that New Covenant
relationship established by Christ. He is not meaning just the era, he is
referring to the relationship itself. You see that distinction. It is not just
the era, typified by the relationship, but he is talking about the
relationship itself. You can use covenant in different ways. We have
talked about this. Covenant can refer to the era in which God dealt with
Abraham in such a way, or it can deal with, it can refer to the relationship
which God had with Abraham. Paul is here using it in that relational
sense instead of simply a time or a chronological sense.

Sixth, for Paul, the fundamental dividing point of salvation history is the
incarnation of Christ. And hence, there are two redemptive economies
which we designate for convenience as the old economy and the economy
of the new covenant. The former was temporary, spanning the time
before, and terminating with Christ. The New Covenant economy is
permanent and was initiated in Christ.

Seventh, within redemptive history in the Old Economy, Paul sees a

distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant is characterized by promise, while the Mosaic
Covenant is characterized by law. Now, don’t miss the subtlety of this.
Paul is not contrasting law and grace. He is contrasting the things which
were the distinct and essential emphases of those two administrations. I
will explain this in point eight.

Eighth, Paul stresses discontinuity when comparing the Old Mosaic

economy with the New Covenant economy. The old economy, he
characterizes by law, death, condemnation, fading glory. The new
economy is superior, being characterized by the Spirit, life, righteousness,
and unfading glory. That doesn’t mean however, that Paul’s view of the
relationship between God’s redemptive economies with Israel and the
church is essentially one of discontinuity, because he stresses continuity
when relating the Abrahamic Covenant to the New Covenant.
Discontinuity is expressed in the principle of promise, covenantal
promise to be precise and fulfillment. The principle of promise and
fulfillment. And there is your continuity principle in Paul.

Ninth, Paul in some passages, tends to stress the sovereign disposition of

the covenant. We saw that in the Romans 11:27 passage, and he links the
covenant idea to the forgiveness of sins, in Romans 11:27, as well.

Tenth, Paul simultaneously affirms the historical election of Israel,

Romans 9 and 11, and asserts that the promise of Abraham is not to his
descendants according to the flesh, but to the children of promise.

And eleventh, Paul’s usage of diatheke, again, suggests that he uniformly

uses it to mean covenant.

The Covenant in Hebrews

The Marriage Feast of the Lamb

As we have already mentioned, Hebrews has more occurrences of

diatheke than in the rest of the New Testament. This relative prominence
of the covenant conception in Hebrews may be attributed to the authors’
preoccupation with the comparison with the old and with the new
religious systems of Judaism and Christianity. I mean it is natural that
you would revert to the covenant concept to help you describe the
distinctives of the era brought about by the advent of Christ. In Hebrews
7:22, diatheke occurs for the first time. In connection with the
priesthood of Melchizedek and here the author says, “Jesus has become
the guarantee of a better covenant,” kreittonon diathekes. In the context
the covenant idea is introduced in a discussion of the superiority of
Christ’s priesthood over the Aaronic priesthood. Jesus’ priesthood that is
according to the order of Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews argues,
brings a change of law and a better a hope. Ultimately, Jesus’ priesthood
is superior to the older priesthood, because it was established by divine
oath. It is this oath that brings to the author’s mind the idea of the
establishment of a better covenant. This covenant is mentioned only in
passing but will dominate the discussion that follows.
The Mediator of a Better Covenant
The covenant idea is picked up again in Hebrews chapter 8, verse 6,
where the author reiterates that Jesus is the mediator of a better
covenant. Again, same phrase, kreittonon diathekes. A better covenant
which has been enacted on better promises. Paul had spoken of Moses as
a covenantal mediator. He had used the technical term, mesites,
mediator, in Galatians 3:19 and following. Now Hebrews applies that
same term to Christ. Another argument for the author of Hebrews being
a Pauline trainee. In 8:5, the whole of the Mosaic cultus, the whole
ceremonial ritual, religious system, the whole Mosaic cultus is said to be a
copy and shadow hupodeigmati, of Christ’s heavenly ministry, copy and
shadow, and of Christ’s heavenly ministry.

As Christ’s ministry is superior to that of the priests, so also is the

covenant of which He is a mediator. Christ is superior; His covenant is
superior. This covenant is superior, in particular, because it has been
founded on better promises. Verse 6. The author spells out these better
promises by quoting Jeremiah 31, verses 31-34, and he does that in verses
8-12. But before quoting from Jeremiah 31, he asserts in 8:7, that if the
first, covenant implied, had been faultless, there would have been no
occasion for a second covenant implied. In this way, the quotation of
Jeremiah that follows, functions as proof of the imperfection of the Old
Covenant. If the old were faultless, why did God speak through the
prophet of a new one, not like the old one, and as an inventory of better
promises of the covenant? So the imperfection of the covenant is in view
and the better promises of a better covenant are in view.

There are four promises given in the quotation. The first is that God
would put His law in their hearts. Verse 10b. Second, that He would be
their God, and they His people. 10c. Third, that all would know Him,
from the least to the greatest, verse 11. And fourth, that God would
forgive their sins. Verse 12.

The second promise expresses continuity with the Old Covenant. You
remember the covenant formula, the Emmanuel principle, “I will be your
God, and you will be My people,” had been given to the people under the
Mosaic economy, Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12. The other three promises
evidenced the discontinuity between the New Covenant and the Old
Covenant, because they represent blessings which the Mosaic system was
incapable of producing as the author of Hebrews is going to argue for the
next two chapters. So the author concludes, when God said a New
Covenant, He made the first now obsolete. Verse 13. In the following
section, the author of Hebrews, illustrates the obsolescence of the Old
Covenant.

The covenant (diatheke) concept in Hebrews

Just a few preliminary observations concerning Hebrews use of the

covenant idea. First and most obviously, the author views Christ’s
ministry explicitly in terms of Jeremiah’s New Covenant. Second, the
idea of covenant as a relationship is prominent in the discussion. The
author is concerned with what? People doing what? Drawing near to
God. The whole thrust of his argument is that there is greater access to
God by virtue of Jesus’ ministry in the New Covenant. Third, the binding
character of this relationship is manifest in the author’s reference to the
divine oath in establishing Christ’s priesthood. You remember, he says,
one of the ways that Christ’s priesthood is better than the priesthood of
the line of Aaron, is what? Because God made an oath to Jesus in making
Him a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. He has
sworn an oath in establishing Him as our Mediator, and that is something
you never did with the Old Covenant priests. The better covenant is a
better covenant, because among other things, it is permanent. It is
eternal. And it is permanent because of the oath by which God bound
Himself to make Christ a priest forever.

In showing the superiority of the New Covenant, the author of

Hebrews now compares the priestly ministry of Christ to the priestly
ministry of the tabernacle. By focusing on the worship of the Old
Testament, of the Old Covenant, and particularly that of the tabernacle,
Hebrews is able to bring into bold relief the temporary character of the
former order. Diatheke is employed twice in Hebrews 9:4. First with
reference to the Ark of the Covenant. And again in mentioning the Tables
of the Covenant. The latter usage of the term reminds us of the close
relation in which the Mosaic law and covenants stood.

The author reviews the tabernacle furnishings and the rituals of the
Day of Atonement in Hebrews 9, verses 1-7, and he concludes by
commenting on the role of those ordinances in Old Testament religion.
First he says, that the Old Covenant ceremony was symbolic. That only
the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies, only by blood, only once a
year, for him that symbolized, it signified that the way into the most holy
place had not yet been disclosed. So as long as the first tabernacle was
standing, and that by metonymy, by part for the whole argument, that
means what? As long as the Levitical system is in operation, the way into
God’s presence, the real way, into God’s presence has not been revealed.
You see that argument in verses 8 and 9.

Second, the author says, that the old ordinances were ineffective.
That is, the Levitical atonement ritual was unable to make the worshiper
perfect in conscience. In Hebrews 10, and this is a fundamental
argument of that passage; the old ordinances were ineffective. They
couldn’t make you perfect in conscience. They couldn’t deal with the guilt
of sin. Third, he argues that the old ordinances are temporary measures.
They were until a time of Reformation he says. And hence, the Old
Covenant ceremonies inherently imply the need for a new order. As T.W.
Manson says, “the lesson which the writer to the Hebrews draws from the
whole facts is the self attested insufficiency of the old order of grace.”

And then as we have commented on this before, but beginning in

verse 11, of Hebrews chapter 9, the author proceeds to demonstrate the
supreme effectiveness of the New Covenant. Christ is the High Priest of
the temple, not made with hands, verse 11. He enters into the Holy Place,
not by the blood of animals, but by His own blood, verse 12. His sacrifice
was not repetitious, but once for all, it obtains eternal redemption, verse
12. If the blood of bulls and goats was effective for ceremonial cleansing,
verse 13, how much more will the blood of Christ effect the cleansing of
the conscience. And here, in contrast to the symbolic, ineffective and
temporary character of the Old Covenant ritual, Christs’ priestly work and
sacrifice are seen to be actual, effective, and eternal.

And then in verse 15, he says, “for this reason, He is the mediator of a
New Covenant.” That is, the basis of His mediatorship is His sacrificial
death. Through His mediation, the better promises of the New Covenant
have been effected. He has earned His place by His obedience as
Mediator. Furthermore, you remember all the way back when we were
looking at Luke, we noticed that Luke tied together the idea of the
Abrahamic Covenant being fulfilled in the coming of Christ, in the work
of Christ and the forgiveness of sin. Now listen to what the author of
Hebrews says in verse 15. His death has taken place for the redemption
of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant.

Now this is huge. The author of Hebrews is not satisfied to say, that
now that Christ has come, His sacrifice serves as the atoning sacrifice, as
the atoning offering for all of God’s people present and future for the
work of Christ. He wants you to understand that Christ’s sacrifice
actually works proleptically. It works backwards in time, as well as,
forwards in time. So that Christ’s sacrifice is not only the sacrifice for all
of those who are under the New Covenant, but is actually the real sacrifice
that brought about union with God, under the Old Covenant, and the Old
Covenant sacrificial system was merely a shadow of that real sacrifice.
This is why Hebrews is the key book in the New Testament to teach you
how to understand typology, because it teaches us that the relationship
between Old Testament shadows, and New Testament realities.

Now, another term. Old Testament types and then New Testament
antitypes. The relationship is not simply that this happens, the Old
Testament shadow happens, and it predicts accurately this thing that is
going to happen here in the New Testament. The New Testament reality
which is a heavenly reality actually invests the Old Testament type with
the only usefulness that it has. You need to read Murray on this, and you
need to read Clowney on this as you work through your biblical theology,
because it will transform the way you see the relationship between the
Old and the New Testaments. Not just that the Old Testament is
predicting something that is going to come, but it is that the effectiveness
of the Old Testament system itself is dependent upon the heavenly reality
of the work of Christ, which is fulfilled in time, after the Old Testament
event, but because it is a heavenly reality, it already has significance
before it actually occurs in time. And that is why the author of Hebrews
can so confidently say, all the Old Testament sacrifices offered from here
to here could not forgive sins, and yet at the same time, could be so
confident that all the believers in God, from here to here, were indeed
accepted in God, because Christ’s heavenly work pertained to them, just
like it pertains to us. Now that is mind-boggling stuff. But it is rich. So it
is worth pondering.

Question. What about Gentiles in the Old Testament. How did they
have access to God? Thank you. I mean all the Gentiles, who trusted in
the Lord God of Israel, in accordance with the teaching of His prophets,
and yes, proselytes, too, Naaman, and Ruth. Of course we don’t know
how many were there, we only have a certain number of them listed for us
in the Old Testament, and those are good examples. You know, God
clearly discriminates in favor of Israel in that sense, because Israel is
given revelation that the other nations are not given. And so their access
to God must be through, mediated through, Israel.

Now, we have already taken a good long, hard look at verses 16 and
17, and the translation and meaning of diatheke there, so I won’t belabor
that, except, just to say this, to reiterate this. One point emerges clearly
from verses 16 and 17 of Hebrews chapter 9: the connection between the
inauguration of the covenant of Sinai, the Mosaic Covenant, the
connection between that and the inauguration of the New Covenant by
Christ. The first covenant’s mediator, Moses, inaugurated it with the
sprinkling of blood of calves and goats. The New Covenant’s Mediator,
Christ, inaugurated it by the shedding of His own blood. The superiority
of the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ is manifest in that it brings
cleansing from sin, which the sacrifices of the first Covenant could not
accomplish. Its efficacy is permanent in duration, and the author
reiterates this in the next usage of diatheke which you find in Hebrews
10, verse 16. The author reiterates this as he quotes from Jeremiah 31,
verses 33 and 34, and he emphasizes the covenantal promise of the law
written on the heart and the forgiveness of sins.

And he concludes, “now where there is forgiveness of these things,

there is no longer any offering for sin.” Now the forgiveness of sins has
been realized in the New Covenant, there is no longer any need for the
sacrifices of the Old Covenant. And that is his argument: in the
termination of the repeated sin offerings, the finality of the sacrifice of
Christ is confirmed.

But Hebrews is not finished with the covenant idea yet. Alongside the
greater blessing of the New Covenant, there is a severer penalty for the
covenant breaker in the New Covenant. Hebrews 10, verses 28 and 29:
“Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses, dies without mercy on the
testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do
you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the son of God,
and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant, to haima tes
diathekes, the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has
insulted the spirit of grace.” That is a hard passage any way you cut it.
The author here brings back into view the mutuality of the covenant.
Covenant loyalty, covenant faithfulness, and covenant fidelity is expected
of those who have united themselves to the New Covenant community.
When the covenant is repudiated, the curses come into play. For
Hebrews, this is just as true, and indeed more so under the New
Covenant, as it was under the old. So the argument that the Old
Covenant was the covenant of wrath and curse, and the New Covenant is
the covenant of love and mercy, is dispelled. In fact, his argument is that
the punishment is severer in the New Covenant for rejecting the
revelation of God.

In the next occurrence of diatheke in Hebrews, the author again

contrasts the Old Covenant and the New. Christians come not to
ominous Mt. Sinai, verses 18 – 21, but to glorious Mt. Zion, verses 22 and
23. And as several of you were pointing out to me, this is picking up on a
major theme in the book of Isaiah, and the idea of the mountain of the
Lord to which the nations will stream. Christians come not to Sinai, but
to Zion, and to Jesus the Mediator of a New Covenant, verse 24, kia
diathekes neas mesite Iesou. It is His sprinkled blood which has
inaugurated the covenant, and this blood speaks better than Abel’s blood
which cried to God from the ground. The author’s final use of diatheke
comes in his closing prayer. Where he speaks of the “God of peace who
brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep through the
blood of the eternal covenant” en haimati diathekes haioniou, “even
Jesus Christ our Lord.” Once more, Hebrews emphasizes the everlasting
character of the covenant which has been establishes by the blood of
Christ. Our own Sam Kistemaker observes this, “Two major themes
dominate this epistle. The high priestly work of Christ, summarized in
the expression, blood, and the covenant that is eternal.” In this verse,
once again, and for the last time, these themes are highlighted. God’s
covenant with His people will remain forever. That covenant has been
sealed with Christ’s blood which was shed once for all.

So for the author of Hebrews, the first covenant has been set aside in
order that the second might be established, chapter 10, verse 9, and the
second covenant is the New Covenant inaugurated in Christ’s blood and it
is a better covenant. Not only because it is effective in accomplishing
what the first covenant couldn’t do because it wasn’t designed to do, but it
is better because it is an everlasting covenant.

Seven points of summarization.

One, the author of Hebrews sees the priestly work of Christ as the
fulfillment of Jeremiah’s New Covenant. And also, though less
prominently, a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise.

Second, the sacrificial death of Christ establishes the New Covenant.

As the blood of the covenant sprinkled at Sinai inaugurated the first
covenant, so Christ’s blood shed at Calvary inaugurated a New Covenant.
Christ also functions as the mediator of the New Covenant, as Moses, the
high priest did under the old.

Third, the New Covenant is superior to the first, that is, the Mosaic
covenant, because whereas the first was unable to effect a cleansing of the
conscience, the New Covenant brings to us the realization that our sins
are forgiven. Hence, in Hebrews, the New Covenant idea is closely
connected with the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, the first covenant
was temporary, while the New Covenant is permanent. In it, the whole
religious process comes to rest. In both of these, the New Covenant
author stresses its discontinuity with the old order.

Nevertheless, fourth, there is continuity between the first and second

covenants. In both economies, God has revealed Himself. You remember
the opening words of the book, “in past times, God has revealed Himself,
many times, and in many ways,” so in both economies, God has revealed
Himself, though the latter revelation is ultimate. In both, drawing near to
God is the aim of the priesthood in the covenant. In both, “I will be your
God, and you will by My people” is the motto, though its fullness is only
realized by Jesus’ priesthood in the New Covenant.

Fifth, following on this, the idea of covenant as a relationship is

manifest in Hebrews. The mutually binding character of the covenant is
illustrated on both the divine and human sides. God binds Himself by
oath, to covenant faithfulness in establishing Christ’s priesthood. Those
who repudiate the covenant relationship into which they have been
brought by virtue of Christ’s blood, are liable to the full force of the
covenant curse.

Sixth, every occurrence of diatheke in Hebrews can be reasonably

rendered covenant, though it is possible to translate it, testament, in
verses 16 and 17 of chapter 9. However, even that passage is better
translated as covenant and the idea of covenant is clearly dominant in the
author’s general usage of diatheke.

Seventh, finally, the importance of the covenant idea in the author’s

presentation of redemptive history is readily apparent. The first
covenant, and the second covenant, the Mosaic Covenant and the New
Covenant, both translate his concepts as epics in salvation history. The
New Covenant abrogates the Mosaic Covenant, but it does so by fulfilling
it. Listen to that again. The New Covenant abrogates the Mosaic
Covenant, but is does so by fulfilling it. In this way, Hebrews asserts
simultaneously the continuity and discontinuity of the divine plan. As
Geerhardus Voss has said, “more than any other New Testament
document, Hebrews develops what might be called ‘a philosophy of the
history of Revelation.’ It teaches us about what changes and what stays
the same, what is constant, what develops.” The only occurrence of the
term diatheke in the book of Revelation is found in Revelation 11:19, in
reference to the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple of God, when
heaven was opened and the Ark of His Covenant appeared in His temple
and there were flashes of lightening and there were sounds and peels of
thunder and an earthquake and a great hail storm. I won’t say much
about that except to say that instrument which was such a tremendous
symbol of God’s presence with His people in the Old Covenant is picked
up upon by John and shown to us in the heavenly temple as a picture, as
a reminder, as a symbol of the union with God which is accomplished in
the New Covenant. So there again, even the Ark of the Covenant, the Old
Covenant patterns, are picked up by John to emphasize New Covenant
realities.

Let me do a grand summary in conclusion on what we have done so

far. Having surveyed each occurrence of the word, diatheke in the New
Testament, it will be appropriate to draw together some common themes
related to the covenant idea in the Synoptics, Acts, Paul, and Hebrews.

Conclusion – Common covenant themes in

the Synoptics, Acts, Paul,and Hebrews
First we may note that in the Synoptics, in Acts, Paul and Hebrews,
the “Christ event” is seen as fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise.
Hence, each evidences belief that the blessings of God’s covenant with
Abraham are now coming to rest on all the followers of Christ. Now, let
me just draw an implication here. There is exegesis that suggests that
God never had in view the blessing of the Gentiles in the forming of them
into the Church in the Old Testament, but that the Abrahamic Promises
are always and only intended for the physical descendants of Abraham
who believed. What you hear me describing is a form of a Dispensational
exegesis. It cannot not account for this New Testament pattern which is
uniform. Those Abrahamic promises are fulfilled in Christ and they are
for all who are followers of Christ whether Jew of Greek. Slave or free.
Male or female. The Abrahamic Promises come to rest on all of these.

Second, in the Synoptics, Paul, and Hebrews, the New Covenant

established in the blood of Christ is identified as the fulfillment of the
New Covenant prophecy in Jeremiah 31. And thus, in the explanation of
the meaning of Christ’s death, given by Christ Himself, He relates the
meaning of that death, to the covenant, and especially the covenant
promise of Jeremiah 31.
 Third, the Synoptics, and Hebrews, interpret the death of Christ in
light of the Covenant inauguration ceremony of Exodus 34. While there
may be hints in the Synoptic, in the Eucharistic narratives, that Christ’s
death was also viewed in terms of the Passover lamb of the Exodus,
explicit Passover imagery is more readily identifiable in I Corinthians 5:7,
I Peter 1:19, and in the writings of the Apostle John.

Fourth, in the Synoptics, Acts, Paul, and Hebrews, the covenant idea
is explicitly linked with forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness of sins is
seen as a fulfillment of both the Abrahamic Promise, and Jeremiah’s New
Covenant prophecy, and is a hallmark of the New Covenant established
by Christ.

Let me just come back again and draw a conclusion from that. Do
you see why, again, we say that Covenant Theology is just the Gospel? I
mean, can you preach the Gospel without addressing the forgiveness of
sins? No. Well, here in the New Testament, that concept of the
forgiveness of sins is inextricably linked with the fulfillment of God’s
covenant initiatives. So Covenant Theology is at the heart of
preaching the Gospel of the free forgiveness of sins through the
costly work of Christ.

Fifth, throughout the New Testament writings, diatheke is best

rendered covenant. There are perhaps, two passages, where it is possible
to render diatheke differently: Galatians 3:15, and Hebrews 9:16-17. But
even there, the preferred rendering is covenant.

Sixth, Paul, in II Corinthians 3, in Galatians 3, and Hebrews,

interprets the history of redemption in covenantal terms. For each of
them, the New Covenant is vastly superior to the old. When they are
contrasting the new redemptive economy to the old, they represent the
era before Christ, in the form of the Mosaic economy.

Seventh, Paul tends to stress discontinuity between the Mosaic

economy and the new, between the letter and spirit, while emphasizing
continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the new, promise and
fulfillment. On the other hand, Hebrews while acknowledging continuity
between the Abrahamic Covenant and the new, displays both continuity
and discontinuity with regard to the Mosaic and New Covenants. For the
author of Hebrews, the New Covenant, not only sets aside the Old
Covenant order, it fulfills it. And proleptically invested it with meaning.

Eighth, you may recall that we read that statement by Delbert Hillers,
when he argued that “when the new comes, all the old shadows pass away
and that one of the shadows that passed away in the coming of Christian
revelation was the covenant.” Well, contrary to the view of Delbert
Hillers, in none of the New Testament traditions is the covenant idea
itself seen as one of the shadows which passes away with the coming of
the new era in redemptive history. It is appealed to in the Synoptics,
Acts, Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation, as an adequate expression of the
relationship between God and His people established by the work of
Christ. In both Hebrews, and Paul, the covenant relationship transcends
the temporal characteristics of the Mosaic administration and finds its
ultimate realization in face to face communion with the God of the New
Covenant. And so, for the New Testament theologians, the covenant idea
is inextricably tied to the death of Christ. His blood inaugurated the New
Covenant, and without that blood shed, there would have been no New
Covenant. It is His death which is the ground of forgiveness of
sins in the New Covenant, and His covenant mediation which assures
everlasting communion with God.

Now that is the barest of surveys of the New Testament as to explicit

references to the term covenant. Can you imagine what we would come
up with if we did a more extensive search of ideas connected to covenant.
The only reason I wanted to go through that long exercise, not only does
it give you a rich resource to work from as you preach the Gospel from the
New Testament, but it reminds us of just how pervasive the covenant idea
is in the New Testament and when you think about the Gentile character
of so many of the early converts to Christianity and to those receiving
these letters, it is all the more remarkable that the covenant idea is so
woven throughout the New Testament.

The Supper of the New Covenant

Now, to Luke 22. I want you to look closely at this narrative,
beginning in verse 14.

“And when the hour had come He reclined at the table, and the
apostles with Him. And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat
this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again
eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And when He had taken a
cup and given thanks, He said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves;
for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until
the kingdom of God comes.’ And when He had taken some bread and
given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body
which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same
way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is
poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. But behold, the hand
of the one betraying Me is with Me on the table. For indeed, the Son of
Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He
is betrayed!’”

Let me remind you that the place where Jesus was standing when He
delivered these words on the night in which He was delivered up, was
packed with redemptive historical significance. God had sent Abram to
the land of Moriah in Genesis 22 to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mt. Moriah.
David, when he had taken the census of his people in pride, and the Lord
had determined to send the avenging angel to punish David and Israel for
their pride and trusting in fighting men and in horses and in human
might, had offered up a thank sacrifice on the threshing floor of Ornan
the Jebusite in II Samuel chapter 24. God had spared Israel, you will
recall. Seventy thousand had already died. But God spared Jerusalem.
And so David offered a sacrifice. You remember the incident, Ornan
wanted to give him the field. David said, “Ornan, I will not offer a
sacrifice to the Lord that costs me nothing.” And therefore he paid for
Ornan’s field and he built an alter and sacrifices of thanksgiving were
offered to the Lord. In II Chronicles 3, verse 1, we are told by the
Chronicler that Solomon built the temple on the threshing floor of Ornan
the Jebusite on Mt. Moriah. The temple mount in Jerusalem is on Mt.
Moriah, the same place where the angel of death had withheld his hand
from Jerusalem, the same place where Abraham had offered up Isaac in
obedience to the Lord and where a substitute had been found for Isaac.
And here we are at the Last Passover in Luke 22, verses 14-18. This is the
end of the old covenant sacrament of Passover. I want to point out three
or four things to you that are striking about Jesus in this passage.

First of all, look at the words of verse 15 very closely. Jesus says, “I
have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you.” Do you note Christ’s
earnest desire for this event? Christ genuinely earnestly has been
anticipating sitting down to this Passover feast with His disciples, even
though He knows what it is going to cost Him. Gethsemane is the
window which God gives us on the almost paralyzing effect of Christ’s
foreknowledge. In Gethsemane we see Christ’s soul bared for a moment,
and you see how terrifying the process or prospect of His abandonment to
covenantal judgment is to the heart of Christ. And yet that is just one
window, and when Jesus says, “I have eagerly desired to eat this meal
with you,” you have to recognize that alongside all the genuine paternal
love that He has for these men, and with all the genuine divine love that
He has for these men, when He says, “I have earnestly desired to eat this
meal with you,” alongside of that He knows exactly what that means for
Him. He knows that when He sits down to eat this meal with them, He is
less than twenty-four hours away from the most fearful event that has
ever occurred in the history of the universe. And yet He says, I have
eagerly, I have earnestly desired to eat this meal with you. We don’t have
a clue. We don’t have a clue as to how glorious that is.

Secondly, notice Christ’s love for His disciples, for His people
manifested in this passage. Verse 15 again, “I have eagerly desired to eat
this meal with you.” That ought to be enormously encouraging to you,
because Jesus knew that not simply Judas, but every last one of His
disciples were going to abandon Him that night. And in the hours to
come, they would flee, Matthew tells us, they would all depart from Him
and He would be left alone. Notice Matthew’s description. Matthew 26,
verse 56:

“But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may
be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left Him and fled.”

His hour of need. All the disciples left Him and fled. Can you
imagine what it must have been like for the inspired author, Matthew, to
have to pen those words about himself? And yet Luke says, that the Lord
Jesus looked at them that night in full knowledge of what they would do
and said, “I have eagerly desired to eat this meal with you.” I know you, I
know your hearts, I know what you are going to do, and I want to eat the
meal with you. Does that impact how you perceive the love of Christ for
you? He knows your heart and all its ugliness and all its sin. And He not
only goes to the tree for you, but He desires to sup with you. Now as
painful as that is to think about, it is also comforting. Because if He
know what I am like, and He knows what I will be like, and He
still desires to sup with me, can there be anything of which I
am afraid? Can there be anything that separates me from the
love of God in Christ?

Thirdly, again, in verse 15, we see here a reminder. Christ’s reminder

to, and encouragement of the disciples. Notice His words,” I have eagerly
desired to eat this meal with you before I suffer.” Three little words:
Before I suffer. Christ is reminding the disciples again of His coming
crucifixion and He is offering this as an encouragement for His disciples’
later reflection, so that when they are restored, when after the
resurrection, they are drawn back in again, the disciples can remember,
He told us that this was going to happen before it happened. This was
not an accident. He did not simply fall into the hands of the Romans. He
did not simply fall into the hands of the Jews. This is not a great cosmic
glitch. This is not something that God did not foresee. This is not
something that He did not foresee. He told us this would happen. Why
didn’t we see that at the time? You see what an encouragement this
would be to them. How discouraging it would be to them for this to
happen and not to have been warned. They were faithless enough as it is.

Fourthly, in verses 16-18, we see a glorious pledge of Jesus Christ to

all His people. Here, He expresses His complete commitment to our
redemption. “I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom
of God.” As Passover symbolized Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, so also it
pointed forward to the ultimate deliverance from sin and death which
was to be accomplished by Christ. Christ asserts here that He will not eat
that Supper until total salvation has been visited on all His people. Then
He will sit down and sup with His people in the Marriage Feast of the
Lamb. And there is an interesting passage, and I just want to share it
with you in passing, found in Luke 12, when Jesus is telling the disciples
to be ready for His coming and He says this about the Marriage Feast of
the Lamb. Verse 37

“Blessed are those slaves whom the master shall find on the alert
when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and
have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.”

Now, I want you to see the rich investment of that chapter. You
remember the great controversy of the Upper Room was whether Peter
would allow the Lord Jesus to wash his feet at the table. Peter was struck
by the inappropriateness of the Lord, his maker, his master, his Savior,
washing his feet in the manner of an oriental slave. And Jesus is saying
to His disciples, this is not the last time I will serve you. I will serve you
in the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. You will recline at the table. The
Bridegroom himself will serve His people. And you will be there, friends,
if you trust in Christ.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper itself. Verses 19-20. Now
remember the disciples still have the taste of the Passover lamb in their
mouths. And Christ takes bread and breaks it, and He says something
that had never ever been said before at a Passover meal. Not for fourteen
hundred years had anything like this ever been said at a Passover meal.
He says, “this is My body, which is for you.” Now the disciples could not
have missed the connection that Jesus is making for them there. They
could not have missed the fact, that fact is they still taste the Passover
lamb and the bitter herbs, and here is Jesus breaking this bread and
saying, “this is My body.” He is drawing as close a connection
between His death and the slaughter of the Passover lamb as
you could possibly draw.

The Bread

So let’s look at the bread. When He says, this is my body, which is

given for you, do this in remembrance of me, in verse 19, what does He
mean? Well friends, first of all, He doesn’t mean transubstantiation.
Jesus is standing in front of them. He doesn’t mean that this bread has
magically transformed itself into “My flesh.” He was standing before
them. They clearly understood the representative nature of what He was
saying. He was no more saying that the bread has turned into His body,
than He meant that He was a gate, or that He was a door, when He used
that type of representative language in the Gospels. He is standing before
them and the purpose of doing this is to do what? To explain the
meaning of what He was going to do tomorrow. All the disciples’ hopes
were going to come crashing down around their ears, tomorrow. Why?
Because all their preconceptions about what Christ was here for and
about the kingdom of God were going to brought to nothing. And Jesus is
absolutely determined to explain to them again the meaning of what was
going to happen, the meaning of His death, the meaning of His
sufferings, and the theological, the redemptive historical significance of
what He was going to do.

And the first thing that He does, in the breaking of the bread and
giving it, is point them to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, who was
“bruised for our iniquities.” Now, I know that my dear brother, Knox
Chamblin likes to stress the fact that the best manuscripts do not speak of
this phrase, “This is my body, which is broken for you.” He likes to stress
that the Passover lamb and the sacrificial animals of the Old Testament
all had to be perfect with no broken bones and of course, that is a stress of
the Gospels themselves, which make it very clear that in the way that
Christ was treated on the cross, no bones were broken, He was a perfect
sacrificial body. But at the same time, we need to understand that the
broken bread here and the body which is going to be killed, is directly
corollary to the bruised, to the crushed servant of Isaiah 53. His body will
be metaphorically broken for the sake of His people. By His stripes, we
shall be healed. By His death, we shall be raised to newness of life.

Furthermore, the vicarious, the substitutionary nature of His actions

are stressed. This is My body which is given for you. This stresses the
substitutionary character of His actions, His sacrifice, precisely in the
language of Isaiah 53, verses 4-12: “All we like sheep have gone astray.
But the Lord has laid on Him, the iniquity of us all.” He is a substitute.
And then Christ calls them to remember. And that is ironic as well,
because they forgot. “Don’t ever forget the meaning of what I am doing
tomorrow, and every time you come to eat this meal together, from hence
forth until the marriage supper of the lamb, you remember the meaning
of what I did for you.” That is what He is saying. Do this in
remembrance.

The cup.

And then the cup in verse 20. “This cup, which is poured out for you,
is the New Covenant in My blood.” Christ is saying to the disciples that
His blood, symbolized in the wine of that cup, His blood will seal the
covenant. This cup is the new covenant in My blood. For six hundred
years the godly of Israel had been waiting for the fulfillment of the
promise given to that broken nation through the weeping prophet
Jeremiah. And Jesus, to this tiny little circle of the remnant of Israel,
announces on this night “the promise has arrived in Me. And the
promise will be inaugurated in My death.” This is so shocking. This is so
surprising. It is so glorious. This promise, this glorious promise
accomplished in the death of the Messiah. That is what He is saying to
His disciples. This cup is the new covenant in My blood. His death is
substitutionary. It is stressed here again in the cup word, “this cup is for
you, My blood is poured out for you, the cup is poured out for you.” I am
not having to do this for Myself. I am doing this because I love you, I am
doing this in your place.

And I want to stress that, friends. This is strictly substitutionary

atonement. It is not simply that Christ is doing this for our benefit. He
is doing it in our place. And the horror of what the Lord Jesus is
doing here, the greatest horror is the curse which He receives from His
Father in order to fulfill the requirement of the atonement. You see, we
so often focus on the physical dimensions of the Lord’s suffering. And I
don’t mean to down play those by any stretch. And we focus on His
physical death and the anomaly of that. Death is brought into the world
by sin, and Jesus didn’t sin. By no right should He have had to have
died. But you see, those things are not the horror.

It is very important for you to understand that the cross itself is not
the curse. It is but he instrument of the infliction of human suffering on
Christ. The greatest horror of what Jesus endured for us, and even the
cross itself, that cruel, that torturous instrument of punishment, the great
suffering which Christ underwent was the divine censure of His own
Father. And that is why He cried out, “My God, My God, why have you
forsaken Me?” That is why Paul can say, “He made Him, who knew no
sin, to be sin for us. That we might become the righteousness of God in
Him.” The horror of the cross is that on the cross, the wrath of God
strikes out at the one place in the universe where it has no right to strike
out. And the only explanation of that is for us. The Father loves us so
much that He is ready to do that. The Son loves us so much, He is ready
to take our place. And how this relates to the perichoresis
circumincessio, the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit, I have no idea. I
have not the foggiest. How that eternal, unbroken communion of the
Father, Son, and the Spirit relate to that moment of divine damnation of
the Son. But I know that it is the most real moment in the history of the
universe, in some ways, almost eternal, and the blackness, just as in the
plague of death in Egypt. And so Jesus says, this cup is the new
covenant. This cup points to the act of atonement. And that act of
atonement is the long awaited event that brings about the realization of
the promises given by God by the prophet Jeremiah.

Words of warning.

Two words of warning based on the truth of this passage. And the
first warning is to the self righteous. There are a lot of people in the
world, relatively moral people, people that we tend to call in the South,
good people, salt of the earth people, who think that they can come into
fellowship with God by their own righteousness. Such is their conceit.
They don’t see themselves as utterly offensive and estranged from God.
And they think that somehow on their own merits, they might be received
before Him. There are many ways up the mountain. Many ways into
fellowship with Him. But you see, the Lord’s table is set out there on the
floor of the sanctuary to say there is one way into fellowship with God,
and to come in your own righteousness is the supreme offense that God
will not tolerate. Because to come in your righteousness and say, “Lord I
don’t need your Son, I am acceptable on my own merits,” is to say, into
the Father’s ears, “Your Son’s cry of dereliction wasn’t necessary for me.”
And the Father will not hear that. Had there been any other way, to save
you, I assure you the Father would not have heard that cry. And to say,
“Lord, you must accept me though I have not embraced Your Son,” is to
say, “Lord, that cry was a waste.” And the Lord will not allow in His
presence any who are ambivalent about His Son’s damnation.

And so the Lord’s table, you see, rubbishes all human righteousness.
It stands as a perpetual reminder of the one immortal, incomparable,
indescribable irrepeatable transaction, and our embrace of Christ as He is
offered in the Gospel, which is what it represents, teaches us that every
time we cry out, “Abba, Father,” that the Father remembers that the
reason why He is now our Father, is because there was a time when His
own Son, couldn’t call Him Father, for your sake. So anyone who comes
to Him and says, “you’re my Father, but I don’t need your Son as my
Savior,” has no idea of the wrath that they are inviting upon themselves.
Self righteousness is not a good plan at the judgment day.

One other word of warning. For those who hate their brothers, and
this is a standing issue in the Christian community, the Lord Jesus and
the disciples wouldn’t have written about it so much if this were not a
perennial pastoral problem. We know it ourselves friends, even amongst
those with whom we are called to minister. We hurt one another. It is
hard to love the saints. I shared with you before the words of the godly
Highland lady to the minister at the door: “You know, the older I grow,
the more I love the Lord’s people and the less I trust them.” Because the
Lord’s people will hurt you. You will be pouring your heart to minister to
them and they will break it and they will step all over it. And it produces
a bitterness. The Lord Jesus at the table asks us to look at our
relationships with our brothers and sister, even our feeble and weak and
sinful and immature brothers and sisters. Look at those relationships
through the crucible of what He has done on the cross, because all who
are united to Him in His death are irreversibly united to all who are
united to Him in His death. We can’t get away from one another. We
belong to one another. And that means that my experience, that my gifts,
that my abilities, that my love, that my loyalty, they belong to you,
brothers and sisters. They are not mine. “We are not our own,” Calvin
said, “we are God’s, we belong to Him. And because we are His in Christ,
we belong to one another.” No wonder the early Christians in Jerusalem
sold all they had and shared with one another. They understood that
there was nothing that they could selfishly employ now for their own
enrichment at the expense of others, because they belonged to one
another. They had been bought with a price. And so my pain, and my
comfort, which I gain from God, my walking through the valley of the
shadow of death and my experience on the mountains, it all belongs to
you. To be used for your blessing and edification. And so I can’t afford to
hate my brothers, because I have been bought with a price. And now I
must encourage my brothers to love and good deeds.

Words of encouragement.

Two words of encouragement. Christ’s death, that scene that we see

in the Last Supper in the Last Passover in the inauguration of the Lord’s
Supper, that scene which we are reminded of every time we come to the
Lord’s table, doesn’t it remind us of God’s sovereignty in our lives even in
the worst of times. Jesus makes it so clear to His disciples. He says,
“don’t be mislead by the events that are about to occur. I am going to be
betrayed, but this is according to the predetermined plan of God. “ You
remember His words, in Luke 22:22, don’t forget them: “The Son of man
is going as a complete and total accident.” NO. That is not what it says.
“The Son of man is going because God only controls good things and not
bad ones, and He is going to fall into the hands of bad men.” NO. That is
not what it says. “The Son of many is going as it has been determined.
Not by some impersonal universal force of fate, but by the heavenly
Father, it has been determined.” And so He says to His disciples. Don’t
forget that what is going to happen to Me is not by accident, but by the
predetermined plan of God.

And is it a coincidence, my friends, that the first two chances Peter

has to preach the Gospel, he mentions just that. Is that just coincidence?
That when you turn with me to Acts chapter 2, and in verse 23, when
Peter is preaching his heart out in this evangelistic sermon and says,
“men of Israel, listen to these words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested
to you by God and with miracles and with wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know, this
man delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,
you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to
death.”

Is it an accident that Peter, who betrayed his Savior, Peter who heard
his Savior tell him that he would not betray him, who contradicted his
Savior and put to shame, not once, not twice, but thrice, who was later
restored by his Savior, not once, not twice, but thrice, could not refrain in
this evangelistic message, from reminding everyone there, believer and
unbeliever alike, that what had happened to the Lord Jesus Christ was
according to the determinate counsel, foreknowledge, and eternal decree
of the Sovereign God of heaven and earth?

And if the Lord Jesus’ death, the wickedest event, the blackest event,
the wrongest event in the universe is under the sovereign and
determinate control of the almighty God, is there anything in our life and
experience that is outside that control? And do you understand that if
there is just one thing outside of that control, then we cannot sing with
Paul, “neither death, nor life, nor earth, nor hell, nor times destroying
sway, can ere efface us from His heart or make His love decay.” If there is
something out there outside the sovereign control of God, then maybe
there is something out there that can snatch us out of the hand of God.
And Paul says, “Nothing such exists. Not one molecule in this vast
universe is outside of His control.”

But the second thing is this. Perhaps, you are one of those Christians,
or perhaps you minister to those Christians who struggle with a lack of
assurance. I have just been written to by one, in the last week, a dear
earnest child of a preacher struggling with assurance, who just can’t
believe, just can’t believe that Christ’s grace is for her. And they sense
their unworthiness, and they don’t even want to come to the Lord’s table,
and for believers who are troubled by their struggles with sin and they
feel unworthy to take the supper, remember this.
 First, Jesus knew His own disciples would fail Him and abandon
Him. He told them that they would and yet He loved them and it was to
those wretched disciples that He said, “I have eagerly desired to eat this
meal with you.” Because their participation in that meal was not
ultimately dependent upon their worthiness, their worthiness was not the
determining factor. His love was. May I translate that? Your worthiness
is not the determining factor in coming to the table. Because the table of
the Lord is not about your worthiness; it is about His worthiness. And
that is why David Dickson said something like this. “When I come to
Christ, I take all my evil deeds and all my good deeds and I pile them up
in a heap and I flee from them to Christ.” Because the table is not about
my worthiness, or my deeds at all; it is about the deeds by which He
earned me. You all know that famous provocative statement by Rabbi
Duncan of New College when he said, “sin is the handle by which I get
hold of my Savior.” Now that is a striking saying, isn’t it? What did he
mean? He is saying this, “when I open my Bible, I don’t see anywhere
written, ‘God loves John Duncan,’ but when I open my Bible, I read ‘God
loves sinners and has given His Son for them, and if those sinners will
trust in Christ, then I will save them.’ And then I insert my name into
those passages, because I am a sinner and I read, ‘God loves John
Duncan, because John Duncan is a sinner who has trusted in Jesus
Christ,’ and therefore I may be assured of His love, so it is my sin by
which I get hold of my Savior. It is my recognition that I am a sinner that
deserves to be condemned and it is that very recognition which Satan
tries to use against me, which is in fact, the handle whereby I realize that
all the benefits of God’s grace are for me.” They are not for the righteous,
they are for sinners.

And so he could say to that godly Highland woman who was

struggling with assurance and had not come to take the Lord’s Supper for
years, and elders had urged her to come to the Lord’s table, but she kept
saying, “I am not worthy,” and Duncan approaches her at the communion
season, and she says, “but I am a sinner.” And he says, “take it woman, it
is for sinners.” That is the whole point.

You see, the table teaches us that it is Christ who stands us before
God. The covenantal mediator becomes the covenantal curse so that we
might stand covenantally righteous before Him. He made Him who knew
no sin to be sin on our behalf in order that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him. That is Covenant Theology. Believe it. It is
the Bible. Preach it. Revel in it. Let’s pray.