God's Covenants to Us

Before we start talking about the different covenants found in Scripture, we need to understand its definition. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary it means a formal, solemn, binding agreement that is sealed between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action. So, when we talk about covenants in the Bible, we are talking about a binding agreement between God and mankind or specific human individuals. Now, that sounds very straight forward, doesn’t it? Well, unfortunately, we humans seem to have a knack for making the simple complicated, don’t we?

There could be more views, but typically there are two main views about covenants. Let’s briefly examine these.

One view comes from a doctrine called Covenant Theology which teaches there are only three covenants in Scripture: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. Some combine the covenants of redemption and of grace into one: the Covenant of Mercy.

1.      The Covenant of Redemption was made between God the Father and God the Son in eternity past because of God’s foresight in knowing that mankind would fall away from him when tested by Satan. The requirement for the Son to accomplish this was to become human and be without sin under Mosaic Law. The reward to the Son from this covenant would be resurrection, numerous believers in him, all power in Heaven and earth, and great glory.

2.      The Covenant of Works was made between the triune God and Adam when in the Garden of Eden as Adam was the representative head of all humans who were to follow him via reproduction. The requirement for Adam was perfect obedience to God. The reward for Adam and his descendants was eternal life. Failure to meet this expectation was physical, spiritual, and eternal death.

3.      The Covenant of Grace was made between the offended God (because of Adam’s disobedience) and a certain grouping of human beings. There seems to be controversy as to who this human contingent is supposed to be. Some say it is the sinner (all humans separated from God due to Adam’s sin). Others say it is the elect or the elect sinner in Christ (in other words, those who accept Christ’s actions on the cross to pay for their sin).

Likely because the second party in the Covenant of Grace is hard to define, some roll this covenant into the Covenant of Redemption and called it the Covenant of Mercy since the Covenant of Redemption is the eternal model and foundation for the Covenant of Grace and provides the means for its execution.

Now, these covenants are not mentioned in Scripture by these names. Is there anything wrong with this biblical thinking? Well, yes and no. It does provide the biblical teaching of the redemptive act of Christ, states that salvation is by grace through faith, and these beliefs show the motivation for what man is to believe and practice. Yet, we need to ask ourselves, do these covenant descriptions meet the definition of the term covenant provided at the beginning of this post? Unfortunately, I don’t think it does. The premise is good, the biblical teaching is good, but it falls short of its definition.

First, a covenant is to be a solemn, binding covenant between two parties. None of these are presented in Scripture as such. Granted, they can be implied but they are not provided for us to really examine. The one that really falls short of this aspect of the definition is the Covenant of Grace. If one can’t nail down who the second party is, then it can’t really be a covenant because both parties must agree to its conditions and requirements.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the concept of this covenant as provided is certainly true but without a defined party, I’m not sure it can be classified as a true covenant with the definition that is normally provided for this word.

There is another aspect of these covenants that seems to fall short of what we know of in Scripture. Not that they are necessarily wrong, but that they are too limited. These covenants, as defined, seem to indicate that the sole purpose of history is for the salvation of the elect. While that is definitely an important part of biblical truth, it is not the entire truth of what Scripture reveals to us. While God most definitely has a plan and purpose for the elect, God’s ultimate goal in history must be large enough to incorporate other programs that are part of Scripture: the non-elect, nations, rulers, Satan, and nature to name a few of these other important systems that must be incorporated into an overarching biblical plan. I think we need to be cautious when the theme of Scripture has man as its center. While that may not be the intent of the concept of these covenants as defined here, it does seem to imply such. I think God, and especially Jesus Christ, is the focus of Scripture. We are part of his plan, but we are only a part of his ultimate plan.

Also, I’m not sure why these three covenants are conveyed as the only covenants of Scripture when Scripture itself mentions the term covenant in its text. The word “covenant” is used almost 290 times in Scripture. Here are just a few of the specific times: with Noah: Gn 6:18; 9:9-17; with Abraham: Gn 15:18, 17:2-21; with Israel: Ex 24:7-8, 34:27-29; with David: 2Sa 7:28, 23:5; 2Ch 7:18; and new covenant: Jr 31:31-32. Sometimes, it seems the text is quite nuanced in what is being said about a covenant. I know the point is to convey what is being said at a high level, but shouldn’t an effort be made to explain how these three take all these others into account as well as explain why covenants not specifically named in Scripture are used while those covenants mentioned in Scripture are not part of the names provided for this theological philosophy.

Also, there are other aspects that need to be considered. For example, these three covenants do not distinguish between Israel and the Church as it is about believers throughout history. While that is true to a certain extent, Scripture does indicate there is a distinction between the two and that God has a distinct plan for each (Ro 11:25-27). Also, the overall teaching with these three covenants seems to apply historical-grammatical hermeneutics to Scriptures which have already been fulfilled but applies more allegorical elements to unfulfilled Scripture. This seems dichotomous and would require one to continually move from allegorical to historical as time progresses as more and more prophetic scripture becomes fulfilled.

In the beginning of this post, I stated there are two covenant philosophies. What is the second one? Stay tuned and we will discuss this second one next time. I hope you join me.

Note: most of this post’s concepts were taken from the book There Really is a Difference by Renald E. Showers.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens