Kevin DeYoung (0:03)

Hello, I'm Kevin DeYoung, pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and you are listening to Doctrine Matters. We want this podcast to equip Christians with a better understanding of the rich theology that undergirds our faith. And hopefully along the way, we'll be looking at some that have even been misunderstood or maybe threatened in the church's history. We'll point out the biblical evidence, the arguments, and work together to reshape our thinking, be transformed by the renewal of our minds with scripture and reason as we think theologically together. Because, as the title of the podcast tells you, Doctrine Matters. We're continuing with Covenant Theology. Introduced the topic last week. What is a covenant? It's a promissory agreement between two or more parties. And then look briefly at the covenant of redemption, the pactum salutis, in Latin, the pact of salvation. This pre temporal agreement in eternity past between the Father and the Son, and in some way also want to include the Holy Spirit to redeem a people that the Father would give to the Son a people, and he would be their surety. We come now to the bicovenantal structure of our relationship with God. By that I mean there are two fundamental covenantal arrangements. So this is covenant of redemption is one among the persons at the Trinity. Now we're looking at God's covenant relationship to us. There is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. The covenant of works refers to the arrangement between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden whereby Adam, as head of the human race, was promised life upon obedience to the divine command and threatened with death upon disobedience. I think covenant of works is a good name because there's that works principle, but it's often been called other things. The covenant of nature because it's founded on the nature of man as first created by God, or the Edenic covenant. Covenant because it was initiated in the Garden of Eden, the covenant of creation because it was established at the creation of man, or the covenant of life, which is a bit confusing because it brought death, but it did promise life upon perfect and perpetual obedience. But covenant of works is the most common name, and I think it's preferable because it underscores that the blessings and curses were to be given according to the principle of works instead of grace. One of the classic texts, other than simply looking at the arrangement and seeing that it has the many, if not most, of the requisite parts of a covenant. The classic text is Hosea 6, 7. But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant. It's best to see here the singular person of Adam in view. So Adam there is referred to as being in a covenant. And God there in Hosea is comparing Israel's sin to the sin of mankind from the beginning to emphasize the magnitude of Israel by pointing to Adam as the original and the example of their iniquity. We see this covenant idea in Genesis 1:3, that there's a swearing of an oath, there's the presence of witnesses, let us make man. There's the sign there with the tree. And we find corroboration in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, that Adam is a type of the one to come. So we have a good reason then to connect the nature of Jesus accomplishment with the nature of Adam's failure. Jesus was a representative, and his work was understood in covenantal terms. And if Adam and Jesus stand in parallel, then we must see Adam as. As a representative, as one whose work in this place, in this instance, a failed work should be seen in covenantal terms. So that is the covenant of works. We were all in Adam, and he was promised life upon perpetual and perfect obedience. And he was promised and threatened death. And he of course sinned, and so he inherited death. Then we come to the covenant of grace. Since the Fall, we have been rendered incapable of living by the covenant of works. There is no possibility that we can be perfectly and perpetually obedient. So there is no way in which the covenant of works can be to us a covenant of life. Now, the works principle is still operative. It's not that God has set aside the works principle that's very important, because Christ is going to fulfill that works principle. So it's not that God said, you know what? I no longer demand obedience. I no longer want my will to be followed perfectly. Now we're just going to have a different plan called grace. But no, this grace is precisely because we who were in Adam can now be in Christ. The covenant of grace can be considered depending on how we understand our terms. Some people call it conditional, some people call it unconditional. It's unconditional if we understand condition to imply some sort of merit. That's how people sometimes use the term. They get nervous. If we say the covenant of grace has conditions. They say, no, wait, this is. This is grace. This is not merit. We're not earning anything. And that's certainly true. On the other hand, many Reformed theologians, and most, I think, have not shied away from calling the covenant of grace a conditional covenant. Entrance is free. At the same time, faith is required of Those who would enjoy all the benefits of the covenant. And importantly, this faith itself is a gift. So to say that there is a condition to be met doesn't say that we are meeting the condition of ourselves. But it is unilaterally a gift of God to even give us the faith that is the condition for enjoying the benefits of the covenant of grace. There have always been two ways of existing within the covenant of grace. Now, for anyone listening, my Baptist friends, brothers and sisters, this is where we view the covenants differently. There's been a resurgence among Baptists in the last couple of decades to really think seriously about covenant theology. And that's, that's not a, a new thing. It's new in its emphasis. But that's been there since the London Baptist confession in the 17th century. But here's where there is a difference, an important difference, between how Presbyterians reformed, how I understand the covenant, and how Baptist friends would. I would say there have always been two ways of existing within the covenant of grace. The covenant expressed in the Old Testament was always spiritual in nature. Circumcision of the flesh was supposed to have its counterpart in the circumcision of the heart. See that in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. And Paul makes that point forcefully in Romans 4:11, where circumcision is called a sign and seal given to Abraham of the righteousness that comes by faith. It may seem strange that this sign was given to an 8 day old until we realized that it was possible to be connected externally to the covenant without yet personally owning all the internal blessings. That's what I mean by the covenant having an internal and an external, an objective and subjective element. And the same reality is possible in the new covenant. There are those who are externally connected to the blood of Christ, set apart in a covenantal sense. Hebrews 10:29 says that in the end, some profane the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified. So, so think about that. Profane the blood of the covenant. This must be the blood of the new covenant, the covenant of grace. They profane it. They're set apart by there's some external connection to the work of Christ. It's not saying that they're justified and unjustified or regenerated and ungenerated, but they are set apart in a covenantal sense. There's an objective external reality. And yet they prove to be covenant breakers. Some theologians call this dynamic the administration of the covenant and the essence of the covenant, or conditional covenant and absolute covenant or covenant as a legal relationship. And covenant as a communion of life. Whatever language we use, the point is that in the Old Testament and the New Testament, the covenant of grace has both objective and subjective elements. Last thing to say here about the covenant of grace, and this is again a difference between Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptists and others might understand the covenant of grace. Someone who say is progressive covenantalist would want to see and does see a unity of this covenant of grace and that this is a unifying principle. This is a spine in our reading of the Bible. It helps us understand how all the pieces fit together, but would use a little different language in understanding the covenant of grace. The Westminster Confession says this covenant of grace, though differently administered through redemptive history, is but one and the same under various dispensations. So that's important. The new covenant is a fuller and clearer expression of the covenant of grace, but it is not different in substance from the various covenants in the Old Testament, most notably the Abrahamic covenant. The most fundamental foundational covenant blessing is the promise of God's presence. I will be with you, you will be my people. I will be your God. And this is woven throughout Scripture. It's there in Genesis 17 at the covenant of circumcision, at the giving of the law, in Exodus 20, the renewal of the covenant to Deuteronomy 29. It's there at the promise of Davidic king in 2nd Samuel 7. It's the hope of the new covenant in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It's the promise fulfilled in the consummation of the new heavens and the new earth. In Revelation 21, God's gracious covenant promise, he will be a God to us, and we will be his people. So it's not simply that this covenant of grace is finding its expression in the new covenant, but there is a singular covenant of grace which is administered through various. Now the word in the Westminster Confession is dispensations, but that's not dispensationalism. They just mean different economies, different modes of being. So these covenants that we see in the Old Testament are various administrations of the one covenant of grace. They have different themes, they have different emphases, but they are not fundamentally of a different sort. So the Noah covenant, for example, in Genesis 9, is a covenant of preservation, where God promises a predictable regularity to days and season, gives the sign of a rainbow, which is a natural sign and a bloodless sign. But it is a sign to point to God's promise that never again will he destroy the world with a flood. Unique among the major covenants in the Bible, the Noah covenant is not made with God's people alone. It's covenant made with Noah, his family, their descendants and all living things. It's a covenant, we might say of common grace, not special grace. It is a covenant which is preparatory, it is preserving the people and the land that there might be this increasing, fuller expression of God's grace. So it is both like and unlike God's covenant with Adam. There are some similarities. Certainly after Noah it is a kind of creation 2.0 and in fact the Flood. Very distinct parallels to show that in the way in which the world was made, it's now becoming unmade. But we see in Genesis 9 there are no covenant conditions, no curses, no if then formulas. It's a unilateral promise that God will preserve the world. The covenant of Noah in Genesis 9 Re establishes the blessings and dominion concerns of Genesis 1, but in a way that now assumes a fallen world instead of a pristine garden paradise. So with an await covenant we have the Abrahamic covenant. We could spend weeks on this one by itself. And in fact it unfolds in Genesis in several different chapters. A covenant introduction in Genesis 12 where Abraham has given these promises. Covenant ratification ceremony in Genesis 15 where this mysterious dream, vision, enchantment, in which Abraham sees the carcasses of the animals strewn to and fro. This is a common covenant ceremony. May it be to me as it is to these animals, may I be torn limb from limb. May I be cut in two if I should fail to keep my end of the covenant bargain. We see that explained later in Jeremiah 34. But strikingly for Abraham, he sees a smoking fire pot. Now think about fire. And smoke in the Old Testament is always a theophany. So this is a God appearing. This is symbolic God is passing through. So God is the one saying, may I be torn limb from limb if I should fail to keep my promises to Abraham. Of course we can't help but connect that to Jesus, who though he did not fail in any way, will take upon himself the failure of his covenant people and he will be pierced through. So there's a covenant ratification in Genesis 15 and a covenant signification in Genesis 17 where this, this covenant is sealed with circumcision. And then in Genesis 22, we might call it a covenant confirmation. God tests Abraham's faith by ordering him to sacrifice his only son. When he passes the test, God redoubles his commitment to the promise. And it's more than a story about Abraham's faith. It's a story of God's provision that God will not fail in his promises to Abraham to make him a great nation and to bless the world through him, that whoever blesses him will be blessed. Whoever curses him will be cursed. And then finally, quickly, we could say just something about the Mosaic covenant. This is the arrangement established at Sinai where the nation of Israel was promised blessing upon the condition of obedience to the statutes of God and threatened with cursing should they prove to be persistently and resolutely disobedient. Now, you have to remember this is an administration of the covenant of grace. Now, it's easy to say, well, this just meant punishments, and eventually it meant exile. How is this a covenant of grace? Well, remember, shot through this Mosaic covenant are all the whole priestly system, the system of tabernacle and later temple and sacrifices. So there were daily, almost moment by moment, reminders of God's grace. And those covenant curses were not to come upon the people because they messed up and they sinned. There were always remedies for the sin, but the covenant curses would pile up and eventually they would be banished from the land. When persistently, habitually, unrepentantly, corporately, they proved that they no longer were really following the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So certainly law, this is a covenant of law. If Noah is a covenant of preservation and Abraham is a covenant of promise, then this is a covenant of law. But that doesn't mean the Mosaic covenant was legalistic. It was never the case that God's people under Moses were to earn their salvation. No, they were delivered from Egypt unilaterally, sovereignly, by God's grace. God didn't say, go obey the Ten Commandments for a year, then I'll check back with you and then I'll save you. No, he saved them by grace. And the law is how they are to live as God's free people. But of course, they fail in keeping that law and bring themselves again under bondage. But the law, as the moral code revealed, especially in the Ten Commandments, was never to replace the good news preached to Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was not to render void the promise. Paul makes this point in Galatians, but it was meant to show the gracious means for living in that promise under the Mosaic covenant. Thanks again for joining us on Doctrine Matters. I'm your host, Kevin DeYoung. Our hope and prayer is that this has been helpful to you as you look at scripture and try to understand the best of our theological tradition as Christians. Please consider subscribing to Doctrine matters. And if this has been encouraging, consider passing it on to others. If you'd like to learn more about this week's doctrine can ask your pastor for good resources or check out my year long mini systematic theology book called Daily Doctrine. It's about available in print or audio from Crossway.org the doctrine matters podcast is produced by Crossway. To learn more, visit Crossway.org.