3. The Covenant of Grace

3. The Covenant of Grace

3. The Covenant of Grace

1. What words are used in Scripture to express the idea of the covenant, and what is their meaning?

a)   In the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the word for covenant is בְּרִית. In the past, there was general agreement in deriving this word from the root ברה, with application of its meaning, “to cut,” to the slaughter and dividing of sacrificial animals that took place in the establishment of a covenant. Compare כָּרַתבְּרִית (Gen 15:9ff.), which literally means “to cut a covenant”; that is to say, to make a covenant by cutting up sacrificial animals.

More recently, some have proposed a return to the indemonstrable older meaning of בְּרִית. It would then be designated a “determination” or “establishment,” and thus be connected with its root that all determination is a demarcation, a cutting off, whereby the one thing is distinguished from the other. There are no places where בְּרִית occurs that compel this revision of the etymology of the word. That some deemed this necessary arose from the following: A covenant is always a reciprocal relationship between parties; this is essential to the concept. However, since one of the parties takes the initiative and, in view of His sovereign position, can regulate and promulgate this covenant relationship in advance, it appears as if “covenant” means “sovereign determination,” “law,” “establishment.” This is not the case. Though בְּרִית may have this feature in common with חֹק and other similar words by which God proclaims the covenant, after the promulgation it always retains this characteristic: that the result is and remains a reciprocal relationship. With חֹק, etc., that is not so. Compare the expression קום in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11; and נתן, in Genesis 17:2, “to establish the covenant,” “to grant the covenant.” In both of these expressions, the priority lies with God in establishing the covenant. It is not He and men who mutually make the covenant. He alone makes it in His condescending goodness. But the condescending character of that goodness is seen precisely in its bringing to pass a genuine covenant. Although God gives man everything, by this giving He enables him to accept it freely and to enter the covenant relationship willingly. The covenant is unilateral in its origin, bilateral in its essence.

b)   In the Septuagint, the Hebrew בְּרִית, with a few exceptions, is rendered by διαθήκη. It cannot have been the intent of the translators to replace the common concept of “covenant” with something else. In Isaiah 28:15, they translate, “We have made a covenant (διαθήκην) with hell and an agreement (συνθήκας) with death.” Here διαθήκην and συνθήκας (= “treaty,” “pact”) are parallel, so that no doubt remains with regard to the usual meaning of the former. It means “pact,” “covenant.” However, διαθήκη is not the usual Greek word to express “treaty, covenant”; in fact, its occurrence with this meaning is extremely rare. The Greek generally employs συνθήκη for “pact,” “covenant,” and for the most part understands διαθήκη to mean “final disposition in a will.” So here the Septuagint departed from the usual meaning, when it rendered בְּרִית with διαθήκη and not with συνθήκη. Other Greek translations of the Old Testament regularly use the latter; for example, Aquila and Symmachus. However, how did it come about that the Septuagint made this choice? The answer must be this: because the Greek world based the covenant idea, expressed by συνθήκη, so completely on the view of the equal standing of the parties involved that it could not simply be appropriated in order to bring it over into the sphere of thought of revelation. It first had to be altered and improved if it were to be able to do service as the translation of בְּרִית.

The distinguishing element that the priority belongs to God and that He sovereignly establishes His covenant among men is missing in the customary Greek word. The translators allowed themselves to be led by a more precise insight when they gave preference to διαθήκη over συνθήκη. By virtue of its usual sense of “testament” or “last will,” the former was exceptionally well suited to focus attention on what was missing in the other word. This choice naturally elicited the objection that only for the sake of that one element one must now begin using διαθήκη with an entirely different meaning than the word had previously. This element had to be preserved. The result is therefore that the Septuagint did not change the Old Testament concept of the covenant, but, just in order to retain it intact, it modified the meaning of the Greek word διαθήκη, which originally meant “testament,” and now for them became “covenant.”

c)   This designation became of great significance for the usage of the New Testament. In the New Testament, διαθήκη occurs in the following places: Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8; Romans 9:4; 11:27; Galatians 3:15, 17; 4:24; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 7:22; 8:6, 8, 9, 10; 9:4; 13:16; Revelation 11:19. In all these passages, our theologians have translated the word with “covenant.” They used “testament” as the translation of διαθήκη in Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, 14; Hebrews 9:15, 16, 17, 20; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20.

The question now is the meaning of the word in the New Testament. Two answers have been given: (a) Some maintain that everywhere in the New Testament it has retained its old classical Greek sense of “testament,” “testamentary disposition,” so that in the places where our theologians have translated with “covenant,” it ought to be “testament.” (b) Others maintain that in some places διαθήκη does indeed have the meaning of “testament,” but that nonetheless in the vast majority of cases the concept of “covenant” remains in the foreground, so that there is no essential difference between the usage of the Septuagint and the New Testament. We agree with the latter view for the following reasons:

1.   That in Hebrews 9:15–17, 20, διαθήκη is understood as “testament” is indisputable. There the reference is surely to the death of the maker of the testament that must come between the two, between granting the inheritance and possession of the inheritance, since a testament is only in force in case of death.

2.   That διαθήκη would have this meaning in all places is a priori already very unlikely. If we consider how closely in its usage the New Testament links to the Septuagint, then we cannot expect anything other than that this rule will pertain here as well. As long as the contrary has not been proved, we will continue to ascribe to διαθήκη the meaning of “covenant,” “treaty.”

3.   In many of the passages cited above, διαθήκη is used for what in the Old Testament is called בְּרִית, “covenant.” Since Scripture remains the same, at least this much ought to be established: that the New Testament writers knew and used διαθήκη as the translation for בְּרִית in the sense of “covenant” (cf. Luke 1:72–73, “So that He was mindful of His holy covenant and of the oath that He swore to Abraham, our father, to give to us …”; Acts 3:25, “You are children of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed shall all families of the earth be blessed’ ”; cf. also Rom 9:4; Eph 2:12).

4.   The concept in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians speaks decisively for the translation “covenant.” Consider the following: (a) There is a contrast between the διαθήκη of a man and the διαθήκη of God. Even the former no one dares to annul or change (v. 15); how much less the latter. Here the underlying thought is that where a man is bound to his obligations that he has taken upon himself, how much more is the immutable God bound to His freely made promise (cf. v. 18). (b) If one wishes to translate with “testament” here, then the contrast between a human covenant and God’s covenant would include the thought that God could die. Such a thought is not applicable to God qua talis [as such]. That the Epistle to the Hebrews applies this to the mediator is irrelevant. Here it is not the mediator who makes the διαθήκη but God, for the mediator appears here as the “seed to whom it was promised” (v. 19). (c) Here (v. 16) ἐπιδιατάσσεται has the meaning of “to add new conditions to those established earlier.” This does not comport with the idea of a “testament,” but certainly with the concept of a “covenant.” (d) In Galatians 4:24, where the two covenants, the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic, are pictured under the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, the expressions employed require the meaning not of “testament” but of “covenant.” One can hardly say of a testament that it gives birth to bondage or freedom, but certainly of a covenant dispensation, in consequence of which the children of the bondservants are born in a certain condition.

5.   In the Epistle to the Hebrews itself, the διαθήκη is in no sense presented exclusively from the viewpoint of a testament. Only in the ninth chapter, cited above, is that the case. And even there the author moves imperceptibly from the concept of covenant to that of a testament. The motive for this was the idea of inheritance and also the idea that this inheritance was assured to us by the death of Christ. In 7:22, there is mention of a διαθήκης ἔγγυος, “a surety of the covenant”; in 8:6; 9:15; 12:24, of a διαθήκης μεσίτης, “a mediator of the covenant”—expressions that can only be interpreted in a forced manner if here, too, one wishes to retain the translation “testament.” So, one sees that even in the Epistle to the Hebrews the idea of testament is in no way in the foreground.

6.   That in the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper the reference is to a “covenant” and not in the first place to a “testament” will become clear from an attentive reading. Matthew 26:28 reads, τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον ἐις ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (so also Mark 14:24). In Luke 22:20, we read, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἱματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, “This cup is, by means of My blood shed for you (what the cup represents), (the essence and confirmation of) the new covenant.” Here we have two sacramental expressions: The blood of the covenant stands for the covenant itself; the cup stands for the blood. In Matthew, the expression “this is my blood of the covenant” refers back to what is recounted in Exodus 24:8, of the blood of the covenant as type that Moses sprinkled on the altar and on the people. As the covenant between God and Israel was confirmed by the slaughter of sacrificial animals and the sprinkling of blood, so by the shedding of the blood of Christ the covenant between Him with His people and God was confirmed. Of that the Lord’s Supper is a sign and a seal, and therefore the cup is said to contain the covenant blood of Christ. The Exodus passage reads: דַם־הַבְּרִית.

7.   We come now to those places where our theologians have translated the word with “testament,” and where it appears to occur with approximately the same meaning we attach to the expressions “Old Testament” and “New Testament,” whether we understand by this the old and new dispensations of the covenant of grace, or whether we conceive of this as a collection of writings given by God to His Church during the old and new dispensations, respectively. Second Corinthians 3:6, 14 belong to this category: “Who has also made us competent to be His ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit” … “for to this day, in the reading of the Old Testament, the same veil remains, without it being lifted, which is done away with by Christ.” Here, too, the reference can only be to a covenant and not to a testament. Ministers are appropriate to a covenant. Two covenants can be so contrasted that the one is presented as external, in the letter, the other as internal, in the bond of the Spirit. Accordingly, it is the Sinaitic covenant on its legal side that is distinguished here from the new, spiritual dispensation of the covenant of grace. And in verse 14, the reading of the Old Testament (better, of the old covenant) stands for the reading of the law of Moses, in which this covenant was inscribed in letters. For Israel, a veil falls over this reading. When Moses came down from the mountain and his face shone with the glory of God, he covered his face with a veil (Exod 34:29ff.). According to Paul, the purpose for this was that the Israelites should not see how that glory gradually disappeared from his face. This disappearing and passing, this ending of the glory (v. 7), had the typical significance that the entire dispensation of the law is of a transitory nature. For the present, the Israelites could not yet know this, and therefore for them the viewing of that by which the type was pictured had to be retained. However, in the days of the New Testament, now that the veil had to fall away, a clear insight for them into the transitory character of the Old Testament dispensation was needed. But the minds of the Jews were hardened (v. 14). The veil remained; they saw Moses still covered with that veil and persisted in thinking that the old glory must shine under it, even though in reality it had already been replaced by a much more excellent glory. Here, then, “old covenant” is a metonymy for those Scriptures in which the old dispensation is expressed, and there is not the slightest reason to regress from the concept of covenant back to the idea of a testament.

8.   The question still remains how, in spite of this scarcity of data, the concept “testament” could have come so much to the fore and in many expressions has been able to supplant the covenant idea. The answer: (a) The reason for this is the same as that which prompted the Greek translators to use διαθήκη everywhere for בְּרִית. They wanted to emphasize the priority and sovereignty from God’s side. (b) One reasoned too much from Hebrews 9 and thought that the other passages had to conform to that one passage. (c) The influence of the Latin translation contributed to this. This translation used “testamentum” everywhere for διαθήκη, and this usage was followed without thinking. It would be chiefly due to this that the designation “Old Testament” and “New Testament” for both parts of Scripture became fixed. This was already the case toward the end of the second century, although Tertullian still regularly uses “Instrument” in place of “Testament.”

2. What can already be derived from this collection of scriptural data?

a)   That the relationship in which man, redeemed or to be redeemed, has to God his redeemer is a covenant relationship. Here it is not so much a matter of individual Scripture passages that deal in particular with this covenant idea as the fact that the whole of God’s revelation is governed by this idea. For the old covenant, that needs no demonstration. And if we consider that this covenant in its entirety was identical in essence with, and as to form marked by types for, the new dispensation, it will immediately become clear that it also applies to the latter.

b)   In this covenant, God and man do not appear as equals, but God has the priority. His covenant with us is such that in its entirety it is at the same time a free gift to us. He gives His covenant as a testament, establishes the covenant relationship, by creating grace. From the outset, then, we will need to distinguish these two elements: (1) the element of the efficacious priority of God; (2) the element of reciprocity, which is inseparable from every covenant and as a consequence of God’s gracious working is also found here. All covenants, then, contain two parts. This all follows from the unique meaning of the term διαθήκη, whose introduction by the Septuagint is legitimized in the New Testament.

c)   In one passage of the N.V. [Statenvertaling], the covenant dispensation of the new day is spoken of as a “testament,” and thereby connected to the thought that Christ through His death and the shedding of His blood has bequeathed and sealed to us the benefits of the covenant of grace as a testament. The same thought comes to the fore in the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, although there is no mention of a testament. In both instances, it is clear that its permanence, its indissoluble character, is expressed by this idea.

3. What different conceptions have been formed regarding the parties in this covenant of grace?

a)   Some regard God as one party and man as the other party, the latter with differing degrees of specificity.

b)   A second conception makes the parties God the Father as representing the Trinity and God the Son as representing the elect. So, among others, the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q&A 31): “With whom was the covenant of grace made? The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.”

c)   The most common conception, especially since the time of Cocceius, was that there are two covenants—a covenant of redemption among God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and, based on that, a covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect sinner, believers with their seed.

Though the second conception has much to commend it from a systematic and theological perspective, and there is also not a little found in Scripture that favors it, the third is easier to understand and clearer, and therefore more useful for the practical treatment of the matter. Hodge says (Systematic Theology, 2:358), “This is a matter which concerns only perspicuity of statement. There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of His people, and those who distribute them under two.”

4. What then does one call this first covenant?

The covenant of redemption or the counsel of peace. The latter expression is drawn from Zechariah 6:13: “Even He shall build the temple of the LORD; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between those two.” This was so understood by the old divines that the two parties are Jehovah and the man named Branch (v. 12); that the covenant obligation of this Branch is the building of the temple of the Lord (= the church of God); that the covenant reward would consist in bearing the glory, as well as sitting and ruling upon a throne and being a priest on this throne; that the stability stemming from the mutual accord of the parties is found in the fact that all these things occur here as they will surely come to pass. What took place here with Joshua the son of Jehozadak was certainly a type of the Messiah. It appears, however, that the expression “the counsel of peace shall be between the two” was wrongly applied by Cocceius and others to the agreement between Jehovah and Christ, and should be understood of the union of the priestly and royal offices in the Messiah, by which the counsel or the covenant of peace came into being. Even though the scriptural origin of the term itself vanishes, in no sense does the thing need to be denied. That it is a reality appears from the following considerations:

a)   If from eternity the plan of redemption has been established in God’s decree and in it the task of the Son to execute that plan, then it follows from the concept of the Trinity that an eternal communication of this idea of redemption between Father and Son and of their reciprocal good pleasure in it must be assumed. The Trinity is not after all a set of abstractions, but a living unity of living persons, and after removing all that is human that may adhere to such a conception of the counsel of peace, this still remains as the essence of the matter: There is such an eternal exchange of thought between the divine persons.

b)   It is generally granted that the triune God is the origin of the covenant of grace. If election is by preference attributed to the Father, then it seems fitting that the Son and the Holy Spirit were also involved in the eternal action from which grace flowed, in particular the former through His suretyship. This, however, is no different from what is meant by the counsel of peace.

c)   There are passages in Scripture that have reference to such an eternal action in the Trinity. Paul speaks of the wondrously glorious plan of redemption and how it was hidden for ages in God, before the foundation of the world. Christ Himself speaks of the promises of the Father made to Him before His incarnation, and how He received a mission from the Father in consequence of which He came into the world. In Psalm 40, which is certified to us as messianic in the New Testament, the Christ appears saying: “Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do your will” [vv. 7–8]. And the Epistle to the Hebrews, citing this verse, says, “By which will we are sanctified” [10:10]. In John 17:4, the Savior declares in His prayer to the Father, “I have finished the work that you gave me to do.” Cf. also Luke 2:49; 22:29 (διέθετο, appointed by way of covenant); Isaiah 42:1, 6, “my servant,” “covenant of the people.”

5. What was the nature and scope of this counsel of peace?

The requirement of the Father was:

a)   That the Son assume our nature, enter into time with that nature, assume it in a humiliated state, and so become the surety for those specific persons whom the Father had in view in His election.

b)   That the Son, who as a divine Person stood above the law, place Himself in His assumed nature under the law, that is to say, not only under the natural relationship under which man stands toward God, but under the relationship of the covenant of works, so that by active obedience He might merit eternal life. Considered in this light, the work of Christ was a fulfillment of what Adam had not fulfilled, a carrying out of the demand of the covenant of works.

c)   That at the same time the Son in His human nature pay the penalty for the guilt that had come upon believers by their transgressing God’s law, thus providing passive along with active obedience.

d)   That the Son, after having obtained life for His own, effectually apply His merits to them by regenerating them, bringing them to repentance, working faith in them, all by the effectual influences of the Holy Spirit.

The pledge of the Father (equivalent to what was required of the Son) was:

a)   That everything necessary for the assumption of human nature would be arranged; that a body would be prepared for Him.

b)   That for the carrying out of His messianic offices He would be anointed with the Spirit without measure, as occurred especially at His baptism.

c)   That in fulfilling His task He would be sustained and comforted, and Satan crushed under His feet.

d)   That having entered into the depths of death, He would not remain there, but would arise exalted to the right hand of the Father and receive all power in heaven and on earth.

e)   That through His exaltation and in His ascension, when He brought His perfect sacrifice into the heavenly sanctuary, He would be able on behalf of the Father to send the Holy Spirit in a special manner for the formation of the body of His people.

f)   That by the working of that Spirit all those whom the Father had given Him would also actually come to Him and would be kept by His power, so that they cannot again fall away from His body.

g)   That by this entire marvelous arrangement, in Him and through Him the highest revelation of the most glorious virtues of the triune God would take place.

6. What is Christ called as the result of this counsel of peace?

“Surety.” Christ also bears this name in relation to the covenant of grace, which flows from the counsel of peace. He became “surety” by taking upon Himself in eternity the obligations of His own. But He is also presented in time as the surety for believers, and appears as such where the covenant of grace between God and them is formally concluded. This suretyship thus binds the counsel of peace and the covenant of grace to each other.

“Surety” in the Greek is ἔγγους, from γύαλον, “cupped hand,” “palm of the hand.” This has in view the giving of a pledge in the palm of the hand or the shaking of hands whereby one binds himself to another. (There are those, however, who doubt this derivation, cf. Cremer in loco; Prov 6:1). A surety, in any case, is one who makes himself personally responsible for fulfilling the obligations of another. In most places in the New Testament, the designation, “mediator,” μεσίτης, also has the sense of “surety.” But more on that point later in connection with the covenant of grace. For ἔγγους, one may compare Hebrews 7:22, “Jesus has become the surety of a much better covenant.” This is the only place where the word occurs for the Mediator.

7. Is this counsel of peace the same as the decree of election?

Some have identified these two, but wrongly so. Election has reference to the persons for whom grace and glory are intended. The counsel of peace, on the other hand, has in view the way along which, and the Mediator through whom, this grace and glory will be accomplished and effected. In election, Christ was certainly in view and taken into account, for which reason believers are said to have been chosen in Him. But in this counsel of peace, Christ is treated as surety. Election precedes the counsel of peace—that is, in order, naturally not in time, because in eternity there is no time. This must be the sequence, because Christ’s suretyship, as His satisfaction, was particular. If election had not preceded, it would not have been particular but universal.

8. In this counsel of peace, how has the Son become surety, conditionally or unconditionally?

This is the question debated between Cocceius and the anti-Cocceians. Roman law recognized two kinds of surety, namely:

1.   Fidejussor.

2.   Expromissor.

By fidejussio was understood a suretyship, whereby the principal debtor remains under the debt until the actual payment. Thus, someone appears as surety in order to pay for another, provided that the person himself cannot, which still has to be determined. In consequence, the debt remains provisionally on the debtor.

By expromissio, on the other hand, is understood a complete and unconditional suretyship that relieves the first debtor of his obligation and transfers it immediately to the surety.

Cocceius and his school made use of this distinction to maintain their position that under the Old Testament believers did not have complete forgiveness of their sins. From Romans 3:25 it was concluded that for those believers, until the actual satisfaction of Christ, there was only a πάρεσις, a “passing over,” and not an ἄφεσις, “a remission.” And that came from the fact, they asserted, that Christ appeared not as expromissor but as fidejussor. Therefore, the guilt was not simply removed from the elect by His suretyship.

In contrast, the remaining Reformed theologians maintained that through His eternal suretyship the Son promised payment or satisfaction completely and unconditionally, without any withholding of benefits (Mastricht, V, I, 34).

The grounds for this latter opinion are:

a)   Old Testament believers received full justification. As for all gifts of grace, the consciousness of this was less clear and robust than under the new dispensation, but there was not a difference in principle (Pss 103:4, 5; 51:2, 3, 9, 10, 11; 32:5).

b)   It makes no sense to say that Christ became the surety conditionally, as if there were still any possibility that the sinner could pay for himself. In God’s counsel, the sinner appeared as absolutely helpless, and therefore only an absolute suretyship could avail for anything.

One must not confuse this Cocceian view with another true opinion, namely, the view that until His justification God deals with or at least addresses the sinner as unjustified and therefore as personally guilty. Eternal suretyship is not the same as an eternal justification. The distinction between this treatment of the sinner as guilty and the Cocceian thesis is clearly apparent from this, that the former holds both under the old and under the new covenant, while the Cocceians only allowed their πάρεσις to hold for the Old Testament. We say one must consider God’s treatment of the still-unjustified sinner under two points of view:

a)   So far as his conscious legal relationship to God is concerned, he is a guilty person whom God condemns, who in his conscience carries about within himself the sentence of doom for his guilt, who lies under the wrath of God and is not released from his liabilities. So considered, he is not free before God through the suretyship of Christ, but must still be justified.

b)   With regard to his unconscious state, in it God can already intend for him the benefits of the covenant of grace prior to his justification, on the ground of the suretyship of Christ. He does this in fact in regeneration. He treats him, therefore, as reckoned in Christ, and at the same time as someone personally guilty, who must still be justified. The explanation is to be sought in this: With the permission of a suretyship, the creditor is free to determine when and with which steps the initial debtor is to be acquitted. This is so when one has to do with a penal debt in distinction from a monetary debt. Now, in His freedom, God has determined that the sinner would not receive conscious forgiveness of guilt on the ground of the suretyship and the satisfaction of Christ until he believes and by faith is united with Christ. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between the Old and New Testament dispensations. That was true for Paul as well as for Abraham.

9. After the Father had presented Him with the task of surety, could the Son withdraw from it or, after having accepted it, lay it down again?

To posit this would be entirely unworthy of God. In the Trinity, complete freedom and perfect agreement go together. And the Surety was a divine and therefore immutable person. Thus Scripture also alludes to the immutability of God’s counsel (Heb 6:18). The Remonstrants teach the opposite.

10. How do you describe this counsel of peace in a few words?

We can say that it is the agreement between the will of the Father in giving the Son as head and redeemer of the elect and the will of the Son in presenting Himself for them as surety.

11. What does one usually associate with this counsel of peace?

The use of sacraments by the Surety, to which some theologians devote a separate discussion. Christ made use of the sacraments of both the old and the new dispensations of the covenant of grace. Now, it goes without saying that these could not be for Him what they are for the believer. There can be no question of saving faith for Him, or of a use of the sacraments that would indicate the nourishing of faith. If we separate the counsel of peace and the covenant of grace, then for Christ the sacraments were not sacraments of the covenant of grace, but must be associated with the counsel of peace. And these are usually regarded from a twofold viewpoint.

a)   That Christ subjected Himself to it accorded with His subjection to the law. It was the law, upon the fulfillment of which eternal life would follow, to which Christ subjected Himself. But that law had assumed a particular form, and for Israel it was overlaid with many positive regulations that did not otherwise belong to it essentially or necessarily. It was under that law in this specific form that Christ came. The sacraments constituted a part of that law. Hence, He was circumcised on the eighth day like every infant Jewish boy. So also is to be understood what He says to John the Baptist, “Thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15).

b)   At the same time, those sacraments could be construed as a means of sealing the promises made by the Father to the Son and, as some think, also of the promises, in turn, made by Christ to the Father. Hence the emphatic pronouncement at the baptism in the Jordan that the Father is well pleased with Christ.

It is not to be denied, however, that there are some objections to this conception. The difficulty is located in the following: The sacraments have a form such that they only appear to be able to seal what takes place with the believer, the members of the covenant of grace. Take, for example, baptism or circumcision. The primary thing consists in signifying and sealing a grace that cleanses from guilt and pollution. The symbolism points to regeneration, to mortifying the old man, to enlivening the new man. There is no question of this for Christ. Therefore, the symbolism of the sacraments was not appropriate to sealing or signifying anything to the Surety (cf. Witsius, Verbonden [Economy of the Covenants] II, 10). For these reasons, some theologians have endeavored to find a kind of general meaning in the sacraments that would also be applicable to Christ as surety. But in doing that, the significance of the sacrament dissipates too much; the core is lost.

The correct conception seems to us to be as follows. Removal of sin (to which the symbolism of circumcision and baptism points) can be sealed to Christ in the same sense in which, for example, it is said of Him that He was made sin. If the one can be said, then so can the other; and insofar as the one can be said, the other can also be said. Christ is made to be sin by the imputation of the sin of believers; that is to say, because their guilt was laid upon Him. Not the pollution, but the guilt. Considered according to His state and condition He was completely pure, but considered according to His status He was a sinner. In the language of Scripture, guilt is called “sin.” And that imputed guilt lay upon Christ. Through His merit, His obedience, that guilt would be canceled. In consideration of His merits, God would take it from Him. In the state of His humiliation, Christ stood before the judgment of God as a guilt-bearing surety. Afterward, in His exalted state, He is a surety relieved of guilt who has fulfilled all righteousness. And between the states of humiliation and exaltation, therefore, lies the removal of the guilt through the judicial declaration of God, including that it satisfied. The sacraments sealed to Christ that this removal of the guilt would take place upon His merits. Circumcision and the water of baptism represented that for Him. Meanwhile, one goes too far if one says that the sacraments have sealed the forgiveness of sins to Christ. That cannot be, because in Scripture the forgiveness of sins always has a very specific meaning that is not applicable to the surety. To forgive is to remit A from punishment because B bears it. Thus it always involves remission for the person concerned. But for Christ, there was no question of remission. He must bear, endure, in order that His own people could be forgiven. To declare the debt removed because the person on whom it lay has paid it and to forgive the debt are two entirely different concepts that one may not confuse.

Therefore, one can also say that the sacraments have sealed to Christ what is depicted in them for the elect. The Father promised and assured Him that, on the basis of His merits, everything represented in the sacraments would occur in the members of His body.

Not saving faith, which there could not be in the Mediator, but faith in the broader sense as a holding to be true, and a trust in the promise of the Father, can, through the use of these signs, provide strength in Christ with respect to His human nature (cf. Matt 3:16, 17, with Matt 4:11; 17:1ff.; John 12:28; Luke 22:43).

12. How do you define the covenant of grace?

It is the gracious bond between the offended God and the offending sinner in which God promises salvation in the way of faith in Christ and the sinner receives this salvation by believing.

13. What is the nature of the connection between the covenant of grace and the counsel of peace?

a)   The counsel of peace is the eternal pattern for the temporal covenant of grace. Hence many combine these two and make one covenant of them. According to our distinction, the first is eternal and the second temporal. The first is between God and the Surety; the second between the triune God and the sinner in the Surety.

b)   The counsel of peace is the secure foundation for the covenant of grace. If God had not from eternity entered into a counsel of peace with Christ the surety, then there could have been no question of a bond between God and sinful man. The counsel of peace makes the covenant of grace possible.

c)   The counsel of peace secures the covenant of grace, provided that, in accordance with the indications given above, provision is made for all the means and ways that serve the establishment and implementation of the covenant of grace. Only in the way of faith can the sinner attain to the benefits of the covenant of grace. In that counsel of peace, this way of faith has now been opened for him. To Christ has been promised the Spirit, through whom the sinner will be brought to faith, and Christ has reciprocally guaranteed that the sinner will advance along this way in true faith. Thus, not only wherever the external administration of the covenant of grace is, but also its internal essence, flows from the counsel of peace.

14. Where do the covenant of works and the covenant of grace coincide, and wherein are they to be differentiated?

They agree:

a)   In the author, who in both is God, to whom alone belongs the right to enter into such a covenant with the creature.

b)   In the covenanting parties, namely God and man.

c)   In the general purpose, namely the glorifying of God.

d)   In the external form, namely requirement and counter-requirement, or requirement and promise.

e)   In the content of the promise, namely heavenly, eternal blessedness.

They differ:

a)   In the aspect under which God appears in both. In the covenant of works, God appears as creator and Lord; in the covenant of grace, as redeemer and father. In establishing the covenant of works, the motivation was God’s love and benevolence toward unfallen man; in establishing the covenant of grace, God’s mercy and particular grace toward the fallen creature.

b)   In the aspect under which the parties appear in their relation to each other. In the covenant of works, there is no mediator; in the covenant of grace, there is.

c)   In relation to the foundation on which both covenants rest, namely the covenant of grace upon the obedience of the mediator, which is firm and certain; the covenant of works on the obedience of mutable man, which is uncertain.

d)   In relation to what man has to perform in this covenant. In the covenant of works, “Do this and you shall live.” In the covenant of grace, on the other hand, there is only one way, the way of faith. If in the first covenant faith also functioned in the most general sense, it was as a part of merited righteousness. In the second, faith functions as the organ that takes possession.

e)   In promulgation. The covenant of works was known in part from nature through the law written in the heart of man. The covenant of grace can only be known through positive revelation.

15. What is to be understood concerning the mediator in the covenant of grace?

“Mediator” is the translation of the Greek word mesitēs, μεσίτης. This is a term that does not occur in Classical Greek, but it does appear in Philo, Josephus, and later Greek writers. In the Old Testament, in the Septuagint translation, it is found once, in Job 9:33: “There is no arbiter between us who might lay His hand upon us both.” The word has two somewhat different meanings.

a)   That of surety, in the classical Greek, ἔγγους (see above); that is to say, someone who, by assuming a debt, restores to a normal relationship with each other two parties divided at law. In Hebrews 8:6 it has its meaning as “He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which is confirmed with better promises.” In 7:22, it is replaced: “Jesus has become surety (ἔγγους) of a much better covenant.” In 9:15 and 12:24, μεσίτης has the same meaning. Mediator, therefore, in this meaning, is “debt-assuming covenant surety.” One should be sure to note this here, because the sound of the Dutch word middelaar has been appropriated to lead us in another direction. We think simply of mediation. But the biblical concept is much richer.

b)   There is at least one place in Scripture where the term “mediator” has a meaning that corresponds more to the sound of our Dutch word: namely, the meaning of “one who makes peace between two separated, hostile parties.” That passage is 1 Timothy 2:5–6, “There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and people, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all.” In the counsel of peace, Christ took it upon Himself to bring to God the sinner estranged from God and hostile to God, subjectively too, through the operation of the Holy Spirit whom the Father would place at His disposal. It is therefore Christ’s work to interpose Himself between the sinner and God through His servants, who preach His word, to make known what God has done and thus to lead the sinner predestined for the covenant to God. It is in this way that the ministry of Christ’s word takes place. Therefore the apostle says, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God appeals by us. We entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20).

One will then have to distinguish two stages in the mediatorship of Christ, which we can designate the mediatorship of suretyship and the mediatorship of granting access. The mediatorship of access consists in engendering faith. For the consciousness of the sinner, the mediatorship of the suretyship has its realization through the perfecting and strengthening of faith. As long as the sinner has not yet come to assured trust, he, as far as his consciousness is concerned, still stands more or less outside Christ and therefore makes use of Christ as mediator of access. On the other hand, as soon as assured trust reaches maturity, Christ will appear more as the Surety, who has taken all his guilt upon Himself, in whom he is reckoned, who advocates for him in the covenant as his representative. From this point of view proceed those who regard the covenant of grace as a continuation of the counsel of peace and speak of an eternal covenant of grace established with Christ as covenant head. For this view, there are points of contact enough in Scripture, to some of which we will refer briefly in what follows. In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is called a “covenant of the people.” The Messiah realizes in Himself the covenant of God’s people, the spiritual, the true Israel. In Romans 5, Paul draws a parallel between Adam as the head of the first and Christ as the head of the second covenant. In 1 Corinthians 15, the same principle is also presupposed. All that is obtained for believers through Christ, insofar as it does not include moral imperfection, is first realized in Christ Himself. There could of course be no repentance and sanctification in Christ the Mediator, for He was completely spotless, without sin. But if we exclude this, there are nonetheless many steps on the path to the glorification of God’s children that were first trodden by Christ and then by those in the covenant. They have become one with Him in the likeness of His death and His resurrection; they have been buried with Him by baptism into death (Rom 6:3). The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead, will also make alive their mortal bodies, through His Spirit who lives in them [Rom 8:11]. In His resurrection, which justified Him, they are also justified with Him; they are seated and exalted with Him in heaven. They carry about in their bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in their bodies [2 Cor 4:10]. He has become the firstfruits of them that slept [1 Cor 15:20]. In Galatians 3:16–17, the apostle says that the covenant was previously confirmed by God in Christ, that Christ is the “seed,” and that in this word in the singular the oneness of believers with their Mediator in the covenant promise of God is intended by God Himself.

It is not necessary to make use of these scriptural data just for the doctrine of an eternal covenant of grace with Christ as the head. One can also deal with them properly in other ways. But it is necessary to place more emphasis on the mediatorship of Christ as surety than is usually done. That has been pushed back too much into the counsel of peace. In Scripture, it is a present reality that governs the Christian life. In that reality, the doctrine of a covenant of grace in Christ as covenant head has its enduring worth that may not be undervalued.

16. How can Paul, in speaking of the covenant of grace, express himself in Galatians 3:20 as if no mediator came into consideration?

It does in fact appear as if the reasoning of the apostle here excludes any mediatorship in the covenant of grace. He sets the law as was promulgated at Sinai over against the promise as was given to Abraham—thus over against the covenant of grace. He argues that this law cannot have been intended to force in a new covenant in place of the old. For, he says, with the law there is a mediator who brings two parties together, and in His arrangement of grace God is always the only party. God is one.

It should be remembered, however, that this argument only excludes a human mediator for the covenant of grace. In the covenant of grace, there is no mediator as there was with the law, namely, no mediator like Moses. There can, however, be a divine Mediator, for that there is such takes away nothing from the truth that in the covenant of grace God accounts for everything. The Mediator is Himself God. In the Mediator, it is but another person of the Trinity who Himself comes to accomplish the ministry of the covenant. The covenant of grace is Trinitarian in nature; it makes the Trinity to emerge in sharp relief.

17. How does Christ appear here as Mediator?

Not as the Logos considered apart from His incarnation, but as the Logos to become flesh or having become flesh. That is precisely the distinction between the counsel of peace and the covenant of grace. In the former, the Second Person of the Trinity appears as the Logos and decides concerning His incarnation. In the counsel of peace, the incarnation was an outcome, but in the covenant of grace it is a given, something of a presupposition. It makes no difference whether it has actually taken place or is still in the future; in both cases it is in the same manner made the basis for all of God’s dealings with man. Therefore, the first announcement of this covenant already points forward to the seed of the woman, and not back to the eternal Logos who had assumed the suretyship. With Abraham, too, it points not backward but forward. It is entirely in accord with this principle that the Apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:16–17: The promises previously confirmed by God were in Christ. The covenant has its unity in Christ as Mediator, Surety, Covenant Head, but then in Christ as He becomes a figure in history—He has been promised beforehand and appeared in the fullness of time. Thus, when one calls Christ the surety of the covenant of grace, he must keep this historical Christ in view. On this point, the doctrine of an eternal covenant of grace is the weakest, because it has the believer living too much in eternity.

18. With whom is the covenant of grace established in this Mediator?

The most and best Reformed theologians answer: with the elect sinner. To establish this historical fact, we append here a number of definitions from the heyday of Reformed covenant theology.

The title of Olevianus’s primary writing, published after his death in Geneva (1585), is On the Essence of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect.

Witsius: “The covenant of grace is an arrangement between God and the elect sinner, in which God declares His free and willing pleasure concerning eternal salvation, and to give all things pertaining thereto to those in covenant with Him, gratuitously, through and for the sake of Christ the mediator; and man by a true faith assents to that good pleasure.”

Braun: “The gracious accord by which God promises eternal life to man, sinful and elect from eternity, on the condition of faith in Christ the surety and whereby the elect man in true faith assents to this, and with full confidence asks eternal life from God.”

Lampe: “What is the covenant of grace? The accord between the triune God and the elect sinner, in which God, for Christ’s sake, promises the sinner everything he needs for his salvation, the sinner assents to these promises, and thus receives a right to claim them.”

Mastricht: “That gracious accord between the triune God and the elect sinner in and through which He to the elect, each in particular, … promises redemption, calling, regeneration, and other means to salvation, absolutely and without limit, without any prerequisite conditions,” etc. (V, I, 14).

A Marck: “The gracious accord between God and the elect sinner, revealed to men through the gospel in different ways and stages since the fall, in which, for the sake of the suretyship of Christ, to those who believe in Him and repent all saving grace and glory is assigned, sealed by the use of the sacraments, and brought about through the activity of the church.”

Franken: “Who are the involved parties? The blessed God and the elect sinner.… The gracious agreement of God with the elect sinner, in which God on His side, for the sake of the merits of Christ, promises him complete salvation and a sinner on his side accepts this promise.”

Brakel: “An … accord … between God on the one side … and the one who is elect on the other … in which God promises deliverance from all evil and the dispensing of all beatitude by grace,” etc.

19. What motives led to thus presenting the covenant, while at the same time in this way one was threatened with difficulty in practice?

a)   One wished to emphasize that only the elect are partakers of the entire essence of the covenant and all the benefits of the covenant. In them alone does the covenant reach its ideal. It must be realized in them according to its essence, so that it consists not only in an external relationship but also in an internal affinity and bond. Because they had this in view and only this appeared to them to express the full concept of covenant, the theologians therefore said: between God and the elect. One will have to agree that this is a scriptural idea (cf. Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:8–12).

b)   A second consideration was that, in a very special sense, the covenant of grace is presented in Scripture as an indissoluble covenant, in which God always keeps His promise. Mountains may depart and hills be removed; the covenant of His peace does not depart and is not removed [Isa 54:10]. Now, one could suppose this is intended conditionally, namely, that God keeps His promise if we meet our obligation. But that would not be a specific mark of the covenant of grace; that could apply just as well to the covenant of works. And the covenant of grace is distinguished from the covenant of works precisely by the fact that it no longer depends on human willing or running but on the faithfulness of God.

20. Did the theologians mean with this definition that all the nonelect had no relationship to the covenant of grace?

Although for some of them the concept is so tightly drawn that they in fact arrive at this assertion, one cannot say that for most of them. They had an eye for the other side and viewed the covenant as an entity that is ongoing historically. Then it goes without saying that the definition reads: with believers and their seed. The covenant of grace proceeds in families. It extends from the fathers to the children, to distant generations.

21. In what does the great difficulty of the doctrine of the covenant of grace lie?

In reconciling these two aspects with each other. Everyone senses that we may not place them side by side unrelated. There must be a certain relationship. Although the two aspects cannot be presented as completely overlapping, they must still be brought into connection with each other.

22. Which conceptions fail to do justice to this requirement?

a)   All those views that proceed from the idea of an external covenant of grace or a national covenant, or however one may term it, in which one could have a right standing merely by fulfilling external religious obligations, somewhat in the Roman Catholic sense.

This idea can be developed in different forms and worked out with greater or lesser consistency. The result is always that one has to take for granted a dualism as a consequence. That is to say, there are then two circles distinct from each other, and the external one is not penetrated by the internal and accompanied by it at any point. If I tell people that God has established an external covenant with them, that of itself will rob the claim of the internal covenant of its force, so that for many the essence of the covenant of grace becomes a lifeless thing with which they no longer feel any personal connection. Moreover, with this external view, it does not matter where one draws the line between these two circles. One can do that with the Lord’s Supper, so that the use of this covenant seal is tied to the spiritual, internal covenant, but baptism and profession of faith with the external. One can also do this with profession, so that it and the Lord’s Supper continue to go together as both pertain to the internal covenant, while baptism is drawn into the external. Or one may not draw the line through any external means and attach the sacraments entirely to the external. This occurs when one teaches that historical faith is sufficient for the person himself to come to the Lord’s Supper. In all these cases, one falls into an untenable ambiguity.

b)   Nor is the other extreme to be commended. This occurs when in practice one reckons only with the essence of the covenant of grace, with election and the sharing of the elect in the promises. Brakel is a representative of this line of thinking. Not only does he rightly deny that God can establish an external covenant with the sinner, but he also decisively denies that the nonelect unconverted are in any sense in the covenant. Later, he also says in connection with the doctrine of baptism that it seals only the elect.

23. What distinctions have the Reformed generally made in order to do justice to both sides of this matter?

A threefold distinction may be considered here:

a)   Between an external and an internal side of the covenant of grace.

b)   Between the essence and the administration of the covenant of grace.

c)   Between an absolute and a conditional covenant of grace.

24. Where does one find the first distinction?

It is found, among others, in Mastricht (V, I, 28): “because the required obligations of the covenant of grace are accepted by some (that is to say, in a spiritual sense and with sincere faith) or merely with an external profession of the mouth … a twofold or double fellowship of the covenant of grace arises here: the one total or, as others say, internal, whereby those who sincerely, that is, with heart and mouth, pledge and promise the requirements of covenant making, or who are children of the promise, become partakers of all the promises, both spiritually and physically … the other partial or only external, whereby the children of the kingdom who do not accept the conditions of the covenant sincerely but only with the mouth, without the heart, or just with an outward profession, become partakers of external ecclesiastical privileges and only temporal benefits.” He points to 1 Corinthians 10:1–6; Psalm 95:9–11; Judas Iscariot, Simon the Magician, temporary believers, the branches that do not bear fruit in Christ, and the many who are called alongside the few who are chosen.

25. Where is the second distinction found?

In Olevianus, among others. In his work, the title of which is cited above, he distinguishes between the essence of the covenant of grace and the attestations of the covenant of grace, and deals first with the former and then with the latter. Turretin also expresses himself in this sense ([Institutes] XII, VI, 5): “They (the Reformed) propose further that this covenant can be regarded in two ways, according to its internal essence and its outward administration. The first matches the internal call and the invisible church of the elect that is formed by it. The second answers to the external call and the visible church of the called. In the latter respect, the covenant has in view only the proclamation and offer that takes place through the external call, and the external benefits that result from it in the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the communion in holy things, in which as many participate among the people or in the church as hold to the same confession. And taken in this way, the covenant extends to many reprobates who remain in the visible church. In the former respect, on the other hand, it extends further to the acceptance, communication, and reception of all the covenant benefits and internal communion with Christ by faith, and in this sense pertains only to the elect.”

26. With whom, among others, does one find the third distinction mentioned above?

The distinction between the conditional and the absolute covenant can be found, among others, in Koelman, who formulates it in the following words: “To avoid misconception, one must know these three things: First, that when reference is made to an external and internal covenant, or rather to making an external and internal covenant, by that two covenants are not understood, the one the covenant of grace, the other a covenant distinguished from it … for the covenant is one and the same. But they all are not in the covenant in one and the same way. Some are in it only through external privileges, but some are also in it through whole-hearted acceptance, for the enjoyment of the saving benefits by means of those privileges. Second, if we say that some are in the covenant with God outwardly, through visible confession and conditionally, then we do not understand that, with respect to the covenant, as if they were not truly in the covenant, and as if that conditional covenant did not have the complete essence and nature of a covenant. But we have in view the thing promised in the covenant, which no one receives but those who fulfill the condition of the covenant. Third, if we say that those who are inwardly in the covenant, are actually (realiter) in the covenant, that word ‘actually’ has in view the actual fruit of the fulfilled covenant. And so those who are in the covenant only outwardly are not actually in the covenant, for God never gave it to them, and did not intend to give to them the blessing that was promised in the covenant … even so, they are still actually and truly in the covenant, that is, they are truly and actually bound by their assenting profession to fulfill the covenant. The commandments and threats of the covenant of grace impose on them an actual obligation to obey or suffer punishment, as the promise of the covenant imposes on them the obligation to believe the promise.”

27. How is the first of these conceptions to be judged?

That it is unsatisfactory is immediately obvious. It makes it appear as though the members of the visible church who are not elect and not regenerate are regarded as covenant members only by coincidence and human shortsightedness. They are in the covenant with the mouth, outwardly, etc. Thus in our eyes they are covenant members, but not before God. They possess at most from the covenant that they share in the external privileges of the church. But that does not address the point in question. The question is precisely whether and how the nonelect, the unregenerate, the members of the visible church, are also members of the covenant before God.

28. What is to be brought out regarding the second distinction?

a)   The distinction between the essence and the administration of the covenant certainly expresses a correct idea, but the terms are not entirely clear. They do not form a contrast. “Essence” and “form” would do that. But essence-administration can be understood in more than one way and does not provide a clear idea. It can be conceived of as the contrast between the invisible and the visible church, as Turretin seems to intend. Then essence and manifestation would be clearer. It can also be conceived of as the contrast between the purpose and its realization or proclamation. Olevianus takes it in this way. Why not [speak of] the purpose of the covenant of grace and the means for its realization? However, we keep in view the idea expressed in the distinction in order to return to it later.

b)   Also left unresolved here is whether and in what sense before God they are covenant members who have nothing to do with this essence of the covenant rooted in election.

c)   The identification of the administration of the covenant with the external call is skewed. All those who are outwardly called are not yet under the administration of the covenant; all are not yet externally in the covenant, or however one may designate it. A child born into the covenant is a covenant member, but is a pagan to whom the external call comes through missions likewise a covenant member? That cannot be. Outward calling and visible church do not coincide. One senses the lack of clarity in the distinction best in Turretin when one considers that on the one hand he identifies this administration of the covenant with the visible church and on the other hand with the external call. But then the visible church and those who are outwardly called must be identical. Which of course, according to Turretin himself, they are not.

29. How should the third distinction be assessed?

One must grant that of the three it is the most clear and useful. Naturally, it can also be misused. And in Koelman it in fact appears in an adulterated form that borders on the external covenant and then gives rise to all kinds of contradictions, so that one can hardly agree with Koelman when he asserts: “I do not intend two covenants but one.”

That had two causes. First, at work here is the principle of a national covenant, a state church. As an argument to prove that the unregenerate and nonelect are in the covenant, Koelman employs the thesis that under the New Testament, God will accept whole nations and kingdoms as members in covenant with Him. This is certainly an Old Testament idea. Further, in play here was an overreaction against the Labadists, who fell into the opposite extreme. But apart from this erroneous school, there is a sound principle in the distinction.

30. What can you say further to clarify what is intended by these distinctions?

a)   We shall first have to make clear that the concept of covenant can be taken in a twofold sense. It can be a relationship between two parties with reciprocal conditions, thus is an entity in the sphere of law. The covenant in this sense exists even when nothing has yet been done to realize its purpose; it exists as a relationship, as something that ought to be. And the persons or parties who live under such a relationship are in the covenant because they are under the reciprocal conditions. In the sphere of law, everything is considered and regulated in an objective manner. There one does not inquire about inclination or interest toward one or another relationship, but exclusively about the relationship itself.

b)   Covenant can, however, also be taken in another sense, as meaning the same as fellowship. Then it does not have in view what should be and is expected and required but what is actually present in the sphere of being. Every covenant in the first sense looks forward and is intended to become a covenant in this second sense, a living fellowship or a fellowship of life. What the first is in law, the second is in actuality. The first remains barren and misses its purpose entirely if it does not move on to the second.

c)   The application of this distinction to the concept of the covenant of grace can shed light on many points over which the diverging answers of the theologians have spread darkness. One asks, “Who is in the covenant of grace?” If one has in view the legal side of the matter, that is, if one poses the question, “Who is included and of whom can it be expected that they will live in the covenant?” the answer is, “All who by stipulation or by birth have become members of the covenant”; thus, believers and their seed. If one looks at the actual side, one poses the question, “In whom has this legal relationship become a living fellowship?” The answer is, “All who have been regenerated and have faith, at least in principle.” Here, therefore, one has the two sides of the matter that emerged with greater or lesser clarity in the three distinctions discussed above. And one perceives how, according as the emphasis fell more on the one side or the other, the answer to the question, “Who are in the covenant?,” had to turn out differently. So it was argued on the one side: All the members of the visible church are in; on the other side: Only they who have saving faith are in. Both of these are true, but in a different sense. This will appear further.

d)   From this it now appears how one has to judge the concepts “being-outwardly-in,” “being-under-the-administration,” and “being-conditionally-in.” “Being-outwardly-in” contrasts with “being-inwardly-in.” The latter means covenant fellowship and describes this as something inward. “Being-outwardly-in,” however, expresses precisely what is properly meant. The covenant, then, lays claim to the whole of the life of man, even where it has not yet come to real covenant fellowship. To be under the administration of the covenant has to mean that the covenant begins to be realized. Covenant fellowship first occurs for us and engages us as covenant promise and covenant requirement. In Olevianus, the covenant idea is borne entirely by this conception. It has to do with the inward relationship with God, with the essence of the covenant, covenant fellowship. In order that this be realized, the attestations of the covenant of grace come to us. The administration and the essence stand in the closest relationship with each other.

“Being-conditionally-in” the covenant of grace is an improper—better, an incorrect—way of speaking. One is in the covenant or one is not in it. A middle status lying between the two is impossible. But the intention is as follows. Being in covenant relationship is a being conditionally in covenant fellowship. When from man’s side the covenant is appropriated by faith, the covenant emerges in its fullness, as it should do according to its design. So, man is first under and then in it. He is under the promise and the requirement, then he enters into the benefits of the covenant. But he is under the former completely, and he comes into the latter completely. The transition from the one to the other is in a certain sense tied to a condition.

e)   One enters into a covenant in two ways: by freely acceding to and accepting its condition, or by being born into it. In the former case, the inclination to live in the covenant is of course to be assumed. Applied to the covenant of grace, this leads us to the conclusion that an adult hitherto standing outside the covenant relationship can only enter it by faith. By his entering into the covenant, he shows that he will live in and according to the covenant, and this he cannot rightly do without faith. It is thus to be assumed that here entrance into covenant relationship and entrance into covenant fellowship coincide. The first exercise of faith leads, of itself, to both. Supposing that acquiescing in the covenant was not sincere, that all faith was lacking, then the covenant relationship would continue to apply, but from the first moment on it would be a violated and broken covenant relationship; and fellowship, the essence of the covenant, would be lacking. In the second case, where one is born into the covenant, the covenant relationship precedes, in the expectation that covenant fellowship will follow later, so far as conscious life is concerned. That it can already be present earlier in the unconscious life of the covenant child is therefore not denied.

f)   If one is under the covenant relationship and covenant fellowship, the essence of the covenant, is missing, one is nevertheless treated as a covenant member in the sense that non-observance of the covenant incurs guilt and causes covenant-breaking. This explains how there is covenant-breaking and yet no apostasy of the saints. Note carefully, not merely temporary covenant-breaking is in view—for in believers that is compatible with perseverance—but final covenant-breaking. Everyone who is under the covenant is treated as though he lived in the covenant. It is so with the covenant of works, and is so with the covenant of grace. And therefore, one does not have the right to say that the nonelect are in no way in the covenant. For them there is no true covenant fellowship, but their accountability is determined according to the covenant relationship. This accountability is greater than that which an ordinary person outside the covenant has in relation to the gospel. Being-in-the-covenant may never be diminished to a life under the offer of the gospel. It is more than that.

g)   The issue here comes down to finding the connection between this being-in-the-covenant and living in the fellowship of the covenant. It is obvious that there must be a close tie. There cannot be a dualism between these two. By freely entering the covenant, these two must immediately coincide if no discrepancy is to arise. But what if one is born into the covenant? Is then the one possible without the other? We here face the difficulty that the covenant relationship appears powerless to bring covenant fellowship in its wake. We get a covenant that remains unfruitful. A barren, juridical relationship, an “ought to be,” appears to take the place of the glorious realities that mention of the covenant brings to our minds. This is in fact the point where, by means of the covenant idea, the Pelagian error could gain access to Reformed doctrine. If the covenant idea is in fact the all-encompassing expression of life under and in grace, how then can it be that in this form it comes to us first of all as something that “ought to be,” a relationship that still lacks realization?

When in the realm of nature one enters into a commitment with someone else, one has the reasonable expectation that the person will keep to that commitment, that it will not remain an abstract concept, but something that is realized in life and becomes a relationship in life. Consequently, here, too, there is a difficulty. It makes no sense that God enters into a covenant with man unable to help himself, yet in terms of which faith and repentance are expected of him, if absolutely no provision is made to cause the covenant to become reality. But the Lord does not establish a covenant of grace with believers and their seed only in order to obligate them from the heart and increase their responsibility toward the gospel. The covenant relationship must be something more than a bond of obligation.

h)   In order to remove these two difficulties, one will have to emphasize that in this covenant of grace, God in fact makes promises that enable the members of His covenant to really live in the covenant, to receive its essence, to make it a reality. God, when He establishes the covenant of grace with a believer, appears as a giving, a gracious, and promising God, for He witnesses in the gospel that it is He Himself who has generated faith in the soul, whereby the covenant is sealed and received. He further assures such believers that He is not only their God, but also the God of their seed. And that if they raise up their seed for Him, He will grant the grace of regeneration, whereby the covenant will be perpetuated, and that not only as a bond but also as a real, spiritual covenant fellowship. God has pledged to the members of His covenant His promises of regenerating grace for their seed as well. From their seed, He will call believers to Himself. And therefore, that seed is not merely under a conditional bond, but also under an absolute promise. For those who do not venture to accept this, the covenant concept must more and more lose its spiritual and gracious character. They make it an arid system of obligations, in which all comforting and enlivening power is lacking. Because God has thus established in the parents the covenant with the children, He has also given the promise that He will bestow the operations of His grace in the line of the covenant. He can also work outside that line and does so frequently. But then it is a free action, not to be explained further for us. It is an establishing of the covenant anew. In accordance with His sovereignty, He can also make exceptions within the sphere of the covenant. However, if experience later shows such exceptions, we may not seize on them to say, “God’s covenant was powerless; His word has failed.” In such a case, we must always follow the rule of Paul in Romans 9:6–8. The presumption is always that the children of the covenant, who are under the covenant bond, will also be led into covenant fellowship. Election is free, but it is not on that account arbitrary. Therefore, we say: Of those born under the covenant, not only is it required with double force that they believe and repent, but it is likewise expected and prayed for with a double confidence that they will be regenerated in order to be able to believe and repent.

i)    Only in this way do we obtain an organic connection between being-under-the-covenant and being-in-the-covenant, between bond and fellowship. The former is, as it were, the shadow that the latter casts. The covenant relationship into which a child enters already at birth is the image of the covenant fellowship in which it is expected to live later. And on the basis of that expectation or, more accurately, on the basis of the promise of God that entitles us to that expectation, such a child receives baptism as a seal of the covenant. The child is regarded as being in the covenant. As it matures, it is again and again pointed out how it lives under the promises and how the reasonable expectation is that it will live in the covenant. The attestations of the covenant precede the substance of the covenant. These promises and this requirement as they apply to the child are precisely the means appointed by God as the way to be traveled, along which the communion of the covenant, the being “in” in a spiritual sense, is reached. Being-under-the-covenant not only precedes, but it is also instrumental. An impetus proceeds from this that is greater than from the preaching of the word that does not come to someone in this manner, in the way of the covenant.

j)    Of the children born under the covenant, as long as they are children and if they die as children, it is to be assumed that they also share, or will have a share, in the spiritual fellowship of the covenant and the salvation coupled with it. On this basis, the Reformed church assumes the salvation of the children of the covenant who die in infancy. Here, too, there could be exceptions, but one may not for this reason allow himself to be robbed of comfort.

For the children of the covenant who are grown, matters are different. God’s ordinance is such that only by exercising faith can each personally obtain assurance of his share in the benefits of the covenant. If for a long time he remains unconverted and unbelieving, the covenant relationship does not immediately end, and the requirement also does not cease, and the comfort likewise is not removed. But for the person himself, by his unbelief and impenitence, that comfort diminishes with every moment. He must give an account for the expectation cherished in relation to him not having been fulfilled, that he is therefore regarded as a covenant-breaker. This, at least, must be maintained so that the covenant relationship will not be seen as degenerating into a cloak of mistaken passivity.

k)   One can ask: how does one come into the fellowship of the covenant? The answer can only be: through regeneration, or through faith and repentance. The former has in view the unconscious basis of fellowship, the latter the conscious enjoyment of fellowship, and here we have to do only provisionally with it. Now, however, an apparent objection arises. How can something be at the same time acquiescing in the covenant and a fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant? So Koelman reasons that the internal covenant is not properly a covenant because it involves no conditions or proposals for man, given that the exercise of the conditions of the covenant is itself his entry into the internal covenant. Whoever believes and repents keeps the covenant. Nothing more is expected by God or promised by man. In other words, a covenant always has in view something still to be done. Here the idea of commitment is simply employed in order to deny fellowship the name of covenant. But Scripture does not speak in this way (Jer 31:31–32). This whole objection is an apparent objection. It immediately collapses as soon as one makes a distinction between the initial assent of faith and the ongoing exercise of faith. Faith is not something that needs to be exercised only for a moment, as a condition for sharing in the benefits of the covenant forever. It is the ongoing activity that unlocks continual access to the good things of the covenant. So, if I say that by faith one enters into the inward fellowship of the covenant, this does not exclude that the continuing act of faith is also covenant-keeping. It all depends on how one views the matter. How else will such as those who were not born into the covenant gain a true agreement to the covenant than by an acquiescing faith? For such persons, therefore, faith is an entering into the covenant relationship and the fellowship of the covenant at the same time.

31. In what sense can unregenerate and unbelieving persons be said to be in the covenant?

a)   They are in the covenant with regard to covenant obligation. As members of the covenant, they owe God faith and repentance. If they do not believe and repent, they are judged to be covenant-breakers.

b)   They are in the covenant with regard to the covenant promise, made to believers when God establishes His covenant with them. God ordinarily takes the number of His elect from those who are in covenant relationship and from their seed.

c)   They are in the covenant with regard to cultivating the covenant. They are continually roused and admonished to live in accordance with the covenant. The church treats them as members of the covenant and offers them the covenant seals, even stirs them up to use them. They are the guests who are first invited, the children of the kingdom, those to whom the word of God must first be spoken (Matt 8:12; Acts 13:46; Luke 14:16–24).

d)   They are in the covenant with regard to the outward work of the covenant, the exercise of the power of the church. The words of God are entrusted to them, as Paul says of the greater part of the unbelieving Jewish church (Rom 3:2).

e)   They are in the covenant with regard to common covenant blessing. Koelman: “The members of the covenant, the unregenerate, too, have splendid influences and operations of God’s Spirit … I confess that even the lost experience powerful operations of the Spirit for enlightenment and enabling; the Spirit of the Lord strives in their midst (Gen 6:3) and distributes common gifts (Heb 6:4–5; 1 Cor 12:8).”

32. In what manner can one say that the covenant of grace is conditional?

It has already been observed that the idea of conditionality is not applicable to being in the covenant, to the establishment of the covenant relationship. It can only have in view participating in the covenant fellowship, receiving the covenant benefits. The question therefore becomes, is there something placed upon man as a condition, that he on his side must do, in order to share in the covenant blessing promised from God’s side?

Turretin has discussed this issue extensively and with clarity (Institutes, II, XII, 3). He says that one must give attention to four things:

a)   A condition can be regarded as something that has meriting power and by its own nature confers a right to the benefits of the covenant, but also as prerequisite and means, as an accompanying disposition in the member of the covenant.

b)   A condition can be regarded as to be fulfilled through natural capabilities, or to be fulfilled through supernatural grace.

c)   A condition in the covenant can have in view the end of the covenant—salvation—or the way of the covenant—faith and repentance. One can ask, what is the condition in order to gain the end of the covenant? And also, what is the condition in order to attain to the way of the covenant?

d)   The covenant can be viewed according to its institution by God, according to its first application in the believer, and according to its consummation.

The answer to the question above, according to these points of view, is governed by the opposition between Roman Catholics and Remonstrants on the one side and the Reformed on the other side. This question was contended over in both the 16^th and 17^th centuries. In the former it was Junius, for example, in the latter it was Witsius, among others, who maintained that the covenant of grace knows no conditions. By making it conditional, one feared falling back into the Roman Catholic or Remonstrant confusion of law and gospel, something that must be avoided at any cost. We say:

a)   The covenant of grace is not conditional in the sense that in it there would be any condition with meriting power. Our faith and repentance never stand in a meriting relationship to the benefit of the covenant. We deny that against Roman Catholics as well as Remonstrants.

b)   The covenant of grace is not conditional in the sense that what is required of man would have to be accomplished in his own strength. When the requirement is presented to man, he must always be reminded that he can get the strength for fulfilling it only from God. God Himself, by His grace, fulfills the condition in His elect. What is a condition for all is thus for them also a promise, a gift of the covenant.

c)   The covenant of grace is not conditional in its whole scope concerning the covenant benefits. Let us say, for example, that justification is a covenant benefit. Now, this is bound to the covenant as a conditio sine qua non, or however one may wish to characterize it. But now, what about faith itself? Is that, in its turn, again tied to something else? Evidently not, for otherwise we would get an infinite series, and nowhere would there be an absolute beginning where the grace of God intervenes. Therefore, we say that the covenant of grace is conditional with respect to its completion and final benefits, not as concerns its actual beginning. Without sanctification, no one will see the Lord [Heb 12:14].

d)   If we look at the foundation of the covenant of grace as it rests in Christ’s suretyship, then it does have conditions for Him, the Mediator, not for the believer, for whom everything is secured in the passive and active obedience of the Mediator. If we consider the initial inclusion of members of the covenant into the fellowship of the covenant, then faith is the condition. If we consider the completion of the covenant, then the condition is not only faith, but also sanctification.

e)   When we speak of faith as condition, by that is meant that the exercise of faith is the only way along which one can come to conscious enjoyment of the benefit of the covenant. For our understanding of the covenant, our consciousness of it, everything depends on faith. Whoever does not have faith, so far as his awareness is concerned, in practice stands outside the covenant, and to the degree one has more faith, one stands more firmly in the covenant. This faith as such comes into view here for reasons that will be set forth later in the treatment of faith. Law and gospel are not hereby confused, for one must note that faith, although Scripture itself calls it a work (John 6:29), is not considered a perfect work. The faith that justifies us perfectly and gives us complete access to the treasure of grace in its entirety is as actus, as a work, imperfect through and through. This alone already shows that it does not belong to the law, for the law recognizes only perfect work, in which nothing is lacking. Faith does not at all appear as the legal ground for our justification. That we believe does not make justification any less an act of pure grace. This must be emphatically underscored. Judicially, our faith does nothing for our justification. So far as the judicial aspect is concerned, God could just as well justify us without faith—something that does not eliminate the reasons there still are for the position faith occupies in the matter of justification. But those reasons do not lie within the sphere of law. They lie elsewhere. It is otherwise for work if one is in the covenant of works. Then his work is legally necessary for justification.

f)   Now one asks whether faith only appears as a condition, or whether, along with faith, repentance must also be mentioned. On this, too, there was debate among Reformed theologians. The correct answer is that in the widest sense repentance may also be posited. There is no true faith without repentance, and where repentance is lacking, one cannot be assured on good grounds of his sharing in the benefits of the covenant by faith. But there is, however, a difference between faith and repentance as so-called conditions. In this case, faith functions causaliter, that is, with causality. It is obviously in the nature of faith that it gives us access to the enjoyment of the covenant. It is a receptive organ, one that takes possession. One cannot say that of repentance. No one will be able to make his repentance an inherent means of brings him into covenant fellowship. It is simply, negatively, a condition-without-which-not. Justification is of course not coextensive with the benefits of the covenant. In the matter of justification, only faith functions. There it is sola fide. But the covenant is broader, so that one may well say: faith plus repentance (whereby, of course, both are not taken as momentary acts, but as ongoing activities).

g)   Evidence that in this sense conditions are attached to the covenant of grace:

1.   The Scriptures speak in this way (John 3:16, 36; Rom 10:9; Acts 8:37; Mark 16:16; and in many other places).

2.   If there were no conditions, there would be no place for threats, for threatening only makes sense to those who reject the conditions; that is to say here, those who do not walk in the God-ordained way of the covenant.

3.   If there were no conditions, God alone would be bound by this covenant, and no bond would be placed on man. Thereby the character of the covenant would be lost. All covenants contain two parts.

33. How is the testamentary nature of the covenant of grace to be assessed?

From this testamentary character it has been inferred that the covenant of grace admits of no conditions, properly called. A testament, it is said, has no conditions; it is an absolute declaration. It is necessary, therefore, that we look more carefully at the testament idea in relation to the covenant of grace. As has been shown above, the testament concept occurs in only one New Testament passage, namely Hebrews 9:16–17. Here, the testator is Christ. In His death, the covenant of grace is confirmed as a testament. This means that by His death, all the benefits of the covenant of grace have been secured for us, so that they come to us, as it were, as an inheritance, a testamentary disposition. Everything that is required of us toward God is at the same time a gift from Christ to us, for our faith and our repentance flow as fruits from His active obedience.

The conception of the covenant as testament is limited to this one place. But if one considers more than the word “testament,” the concept is anything but rare. It is one of the most well-known concepts in the New Testament. And this cannot be otherwise. The sonship of believers was not unknown in Israel. But yet it first received its full revelation in the new day. Sonship, however, immediately causes us to think of inheritance. And the inheritance is nothing other than the content of the testament. Therefore, wherever there is mention of inheritance, or of adoption as children, the idea of a testament underlies it, with this distinction: For an inheritance, there is no thought of the death of the testator. For a testament, there is. So the members of the covenant are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). There is an inheritance of the saints in light (Col 1:12).

This, in turn, leads to another thought. If for us the covenant of grace has a side that is testamentary and makes it appear as an inheritance, then the question arises whether it can also be called that for Christ the mediator. It is said that we are joint-heirs with Christ. Is He then also an heir? Scripture answers in the affirmative. Luke 22:29: “I bequeath to you (by testament or last will) the kingdom, even as my Father has bequeathed it to me.” No doubt this has in view the mediatorial glory of Christ. And likewise, He now shares that glory as an inheritance with His own. Thus there is warrant for ascribing a testamentary aspect both to the counsel of peace and to the covenant of grace. But this is only one side of the matter, and this does not preclude the covenant from remaining essentially a covenant. We must take both sides together in order to grasp the whole.

Cocceius, especially, worked out this doctrine of the testaments—not in every respect with simplicity and transparency. The opponents of Cocceian theology (the so-called Voetians) were accustomed to understand under “testament” nothing other than an administration of the covenant of grace. For them, the covenant of grace was primary; testament was merely a modification of it. But according to Cocceius it was otherwise, for he accepted three testaments:

1.   A general testament that applies to all ages.

2.   An ancient Israelite testament that applied to the giving of earthly Canaan as an inheritance.

3.   A New Testament inheritance that has in view the giving of the spiritual inheritance to the Gentiles.

Concerning this, Mestricht complains (VIII, I, 35) that Cocceius has made subordinate to this first testament: (1) the decree of foreordination; (2) the covenant of grace; (3) both Testaments, the Old and the New. Prior to Cocceius, he says, Reformed theologians began with election and made the covenant of grace subordinate to it, as a guideline for the implementation of the decree of election; the administration thereof (of the covenant) they called a testament.

On this issue we observe:

1.   That Cocceius undoubtedly was wrong in making foreordination subordinate to testament. The older theology was entirely correct in its judgment that election is the source of the whole order of grace, and that nothing can be antecedent to it. The counsel of peace itself can only follow it in order and not precede it. Here Cocceius in fact departed from the Reformed conception.

2.   In itself one can certainly derive from Hebrews 9 the right to apply the name “testament” to the administration of the covenant of grace, thus to something that is subordinate to the covenant of grace itself. Here in the New Testament it is spoken of as something that has been introduced through Christ’s death. Therefore, it is equivalent to the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace. Also, what came before Christ is equivalent to the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace.

3.   In no way does it follow from this that one may not speak of the old and new covenant. It is true: The old theologians did not do this. In their theological vocabulary, only the term “covenant” is reserved for what old and new have in common. But the Old Testament Scripture already speaks of a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31, 33). Thus one may also say: Covenant can be covenant administration.

4.   Scripture nowhere calls the disposition of the Father concerning the Son and concerning the elect a testament. But if one wishes to call this disposition a testament in its origin (= election) or in its formal elucidation (= the counsel of peace), then we do not see what is misunderstood by doing that. A testament is equivalent to a hereditary disposition, and Scripture speaks of an inheritance, as we ourselves have seen, both in relation to believers as well as of the Mediator. Regarding the distinction made by Cocceius between Old and New Testament, see below.

34. Is the covenant of grace unilateral or bilateral?

By this question is meant whether there is one party or two parties in it. Properly speaking, every covenant requires two parties. A unilateral covenant is a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]. There was, however, an element of truth when some theologians insisted on the unilateral character of the covenant. After all, what is on man’s side viewed as covenant obligation is at the same time God’s covenant gift. Moreover, this covenant is entirely designed by God Himself. It is not that God and man meet each other halfway in order to approach each other. God comes to us and gives His covenant, establishes it sovereignly with us. Finally, it is only man who benefits from it, and so in that sense one could also call it unilateral. In earthly, human covenants, each of the two covenant-making parties gives and receives. Here God alone gives; man alone receives.

On the other hand, it must be maintained that in its realization the covenant is bilateral, because from his side man in fact enters this covenant by believing, repenting, fulfilling the covenant requirement. Although God works this requirement in man, through this working he is enabled to do it himself. To Abraham the requirement comes in Genesis 17:1, “Walk before My face and be upright”; and then the declaration in v. 2, “I will make My covenant between me and you.”

35. What are the promises of the covenant of grace?

The principal promise, which includes all the others, is, “I will be your God” (Gen 17:7–8). It reoccurs when again and again believers say, “The Lord is my God” (Psa 33:12). Considered more closely, this one promise appears to include:

a)   The promise of righteousness for acquittal and for eternal life.

b)   The promise of the Spirit and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

c)   The promise of glorification.

36. In what form does the consent of man to the covenant of grace appear?

This is determined by the promises of God.

a)   God says, “I will be your God,” so man says, “I will belong to your people.”

b)   To the promise of righteousness, man responds by saving faith.

c)   In general, the relationship between God as God of the covenant and the believer, whether the individual or believers together, is portrayed as a covenant between husband and wife, bridegroom and bride, father and children.

37. In the covenant of grace, has Christ become the surety toward God for us or also the surety toward us for God?

The Socinians argued very strongly that the latter was the case—naturally at the expense of the former. Christ’s suretyship would then consist in this: He vouches for God toward us in order to assure us of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling the promises of the covenant. On this question, see Owen, Justification, VIII. There it is rightly observed that this argument derived from the giving of Christ by God lacks all force. That a surety is given by someone by no means proves his appearance as surety for the giver. God can give Christ for the elect, and the given Christ can still be surety toward the giver for the elect.

It is a thought unworthy of God that He would need a surety, as though He were not completely trustworthy by His word alone. One could say: We need someone who assures us that something is in fact a word from God. But that is not the task of a surety. It belongs much more to the task of a witness. A surety for God would presuppose that if God does not do it, I will do it. We also find that the Son appears as a witness of the Father, but not as a surety (John 18:37; Rom 15:8). Christ cannot deserve more credence than God, as, however, would have to be the case with a surety for God.

Hebrews 7:22, where ἔγγους occurs of Christ (the only place where it occurs in the New Testament), states how Christ has become the surety of the much better covenant by the swearing of an oath [v. 21]. That involves that He does not serve as surety in order to attest the promise of God to us, for God Himself attests His promises, and that indeed by an oath where He already gives Christ to us as surety. Again in this passage, the suretyship is mentioned in connection with the priestly office of the mediator. Now, however, the priestly office, according to Hebrews 5:1, is something performed for people toward God. But then that is also suretyship.

38. What are the most important characteristics of the covenant of grace?

a)   It is a gracious covenant. The grace consists of the following: (1) that God permits a surety; (2) that the surety is God Himself, so that God in His own person executes the ministry of the covenant; (3) that the fulfillment of the covenant obligation on the side of man comes about through grace, that is, through the Holy Spirit. Thus, here again it is God who upholds the covenant. So from beginning to end, everything is grace, a work of God par excellence.

When we say that it is a covenant of grace, then we must consider specifically the relationship of guilty man before God in this covenant. When one considers the Mediator of the covenant, then naturally no grace is shown to Him. Considered in Christ, everything is a matter of carrying out the demands of the covenant of works according to God’s strict justice, though in another form. Grace never consists in God abandoning anything of His justice, taken in general. But He does in that He does not assert His justice against the same person against whom He could assert it. God shows grace to us when He demands from Christ what He can demand from us. Considered in Christ, everything is strict justice; considered in us, everything is free grace.

As a covenant of grace, this covenant also has a Trinitarian character. The entire Trinity is active in it. It flows from the election of the Father, is founded in justice by the suretyship of the Son, and finds its complete realization through the application of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8; John 1:16).

b)   It is an eternal covenant and primarily a parte post [with reference to the future] (cf. Gen 17:19; 2 Sam 23:5; Heb 13:20). In this eternity, permanence is also implied, because in Scripture these two concepts are interchangeable. This is one of the reasons why the designation “testament” can be applied to the covenant of grace. Taking this together with what has been said earlier, we thus obtain as grounds for usage: (1) that the benefits of the covenant are an inheritance granted from the Father to His children; (2) that these covenant benefits are accomplished through the death of Christ; (3) that the covenant, like a testament, is fixed and unmovable. Hebrews 9:17 combines the latter two of these viewpoints.

Of course, the eternity of the covenant of grace must be related to the fellowship of the covenant. The covenant bond in itself, if it does not pass over into covenant fellowship, is not eternal, but becomes broken.

c)   It is a particular and not a universal covenant. This means:

1.   That it is not realized in all, as universalists maintain, and also that with the will of the decree God did not will that it would be realized in all, as is held by the Pelagians, Lutherans, Remonstrants, and others.

2.   That even as a covenant relationship, it does not extend to all to whom the gospel is preached, for not all accept being taken into the proffered covenant.

3.   That the offer of the covenant does not come to all, because there have been and will be many peoples and individuals who will die without knowledge of the covenant of grace.

In other words, there is an election of peoples as well as individual election. In contrast, the Lutherans and some (German) Reformed maintain that the covenant of grace in this sense has a universal purport, since at various points in time it is offered to the entire human race, and it would thus have depended only on the covenant faithfulness of those persons living at that time for the covenant to be kept universally. This happened in Adam, Noah, and even later through the apostles. We say: There is no basis to make Adam and Noah representative recipients of the offer of the covenant in this manner. Neither is there proof that Adam treated Cain less faithfully than Abel, or that Noah fulfilled his covenant obligation to Ham less faithfully than to Shem. Here one must simply acknowledge God’s sovereignty, which is righteous but is in no sense to be explained by the actions of man. Already in the first promise by which the covenant of grace is revealed, there is a prophecy of a separating between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. In this, the particular character is implied. Finally, one gains nothing with this abstract universality. To be sure, one must acknowledge that for numerous persons and peoples to whom the covenant was offered for the first time in Adam or Noah, there was a second offer added at a later time, while for other persons and peoples this offer was lacking. So, for the one group, a universal offer plus no offer later; for the other, first a universal offer plus a repeated offer later. That is to say, regarding the second offer, it is yet again a particular offer.

We must distinguish this universality of the covenant of grace in the proper sense from another that was taught by some older Reformed theologians. Szeged in Musculus, Polanus, Wollebius, and others make a distinction between the foedus generale, the general covenant, which God established with all creatures, animals as well as men, and the foedus speciale ac sempitemum, the special and eternally enduring covenant that is made with the elect. For the first, the covenant with all creatures, one can appeal to God’s covenant making with Noah. With that, God promised that the orderings of heaven and of earth would not again be disrupted by a flood and placed the rainbow as a sign and a seal of it.

Finally, one can also say that the new dispensation of the covenant of grace is universal in distinction from the old, which in a particularistic fashion was limited to the Jews.

d)   The covenant of grace is one through all its dispensations, however the form in which it is administered may change. This is contested by all those who teach that the Old Testament saints were saved in a different manner than those of the new day; for example, the Pelagians, the Socinians, the later Remonstrants, the Roman Catholics, who thought the fathers to have been in limbo until the descent of Christ into hell, and in principle the Cocceians, when they have these believers existing under a paresis. Many modern theologians regard Christianity as something specific and new that transcends Judaism.

Recently, however, more emphasis has again been placed on their affinity, although naturally for most the tie is taken as entirely evolutionary and natural, and one grants a supernatural origin as little to the religion of Israel as to Christianity.

That the covenant of grace is one is shown by the following evidence:

1.   It was demonstrated explicitly by the Apostle Paul against the Judaizers that one and the same rule held for Abraham as held for the Christians from the Jews and the Gentiles under the new day (cf. Gal 3:7–9, 17–18). Also, in other passages it is called the same covenant that was established with the fathers—for example, Luke 1:72, “[S]o that He would remember His holy covenant”; Acts 3:25, “You are children of the prophets and of the covenant that God established with our fathers.”

2.   As a summary of the covenant of grace in both Old and New Testaments, the expression occurs, “I am your God” (Gen 17:7–8; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 21:3). Everything is contained in this summary. In His answer to the Sadducees, Christ proves from the expression “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” that these patriarchs must possess eternal life since God is not a God of the dead but of the living [Matt 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38].

3.   Scripture teaches that there is but one gospel by which one can be saved, and inasmuch as the gospel is nothing other than the revelation of the covenant of grace, there can be only one covenant of grace. This gospel was already present in paradise. Paul says that it was proclaimed to Abraham (Gal 3:8), and curses those who, in a Judaizing manner, would wish to place another imagined Old Testament gospel in opposition to it (Gal 1:8–9). Scripture also calls it, in brief, the eternal gospel (Rev 14:6).

4.   The Mediator of the covenant is the same yesterday and today and into all eternity [Heb 13:8]. Salvation is in no other, and there is no other name under heaven given among men through which one can be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the seed of the woman already promised in paradise; likewise, the seed promised to Abraham (Gal 3:16). All prophecies look toward Him.

5.   The way and the condition of the covenant are the same, namely faith and repentance (Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11; Matt 13:17). That was likewise true for the promise of the covenant (Acts 3:25–26; Gen 15:6; Psa 51:10; Ezek 36:26). Finally, the sacraments of the covenant are changed in form with the change in dispensation, but in essence have remained the same (Rom 4:11–12; 1 Cor 5:7).

39. How is the covenant of grace related to election?

As a covenant of fellowship, thus in its essence, it extends no further and is not wider than election. There is, however, a difference. Election starts from individual persons, A, B, and C, and then from them forms a people, so that one can say that election forms the covenant organism. Conversely, the covenant in its realization starts from this organism and then moves to the individual person.

As a covenant relationship the covenant is wider than election, for it also lays claim to those who never attain to true covenant fellowship and a true enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant.

40. Where is the covenant of grace first revealed?

In the mother promise, Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and this woman, and between your seed and her seed. It will crush your head and you will crush its heel.” Some have disputed that we are dealing with a covenant here. It must be conceded that the formal conclusion of a covenant is lacking, which, moreover, would have been incomprehensible to Adam and Eve. Only later, when the idea of a covenant had developed on natural terrain, God Himself used the term with Noah and Abraham, etc. But as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the covenant was certainly with Adam since that mother promise. It was a protevangelium, a “first gospel,” and the gospel is in itself a revelation of the covenant of grace. One should note the following:

a)   Through a powerful word, God establishes enmity between the seed of the serpent and that of the woman, between the serpent and the woman herself. He thereby creates a relationship. This agrees completely with the manner in which He always acts in the realization of His covenant. Later, He says to Abraham, “I institute,” “I establish,” “I give my covenant.”

b)   Enmity between the woman and her seed, on the one hand, and the serpent and its seed, on the other, points to a relationship of friendship with God. After all, man had renounced friendship with God and had allied himself with Satan. Where friendship with Satan has now turned into enmity, this can mean nothing other than that friendship with God has been restored. So here the covenant relationship is clearly included.

c)   It has been rightly noted that the promise of sanctifying grace was also included in this promise. How else could enmity have arisen where friendship existed? God Himself must reverse the situation through re-creating grace. He apparently worked at the same time, or already before that time, in the hearts of Adam and Eve, adding the grace of the covenant to the gospel of the covenant.

d)   When God thus, through His omnipotence, brings about enmity against Satan in man, then this includes that God chooses man’s side—expressed in our current language, that He becomes man’s ally in the conflict against the serpent. An offensive and defensive covenant is present here in substance, although one should acknowledge that Adam could not immediately have clearly understood this relationship. In fact, this did not also need to be the case immediately. The protevangelium was not only there for the initial moment; it was there as a treasure to be preserved and pondered.

e)   This relationship between God and man on one side and Satan on the other is a relationship that is not limited to individuals, but extends to the seed. And that is an essential element of the covenant concept, as we have already seen more than once. The covenant encompasses the generations. Here, too, that is true. It does not extend only to the woman, but to the woman’s seed. Adam and Eve were instructed by this how this enmity against Satan, which God graciously willed to work in them, would also continue in their posterity. There would be a never-broken line of fighters against the serpent.

f)   In opposition, however, there will also be a seed of the serpent. It is not a conflict against the serpent in himself, but also against the followers whom the serpent will acquire among men. In this, one finds expressed that the covenant of grace is particular, that it draws a dividing line through humanity, and that not all are reckoned as the seed of the woman to whom the promise extends. And here, too, there is a certain bond—it is a seed of the serpent.

g)   The conflict that was established by God’s powerful word between the woman’s seed and the serpent will not remain unresolved. Indeed, the serpent shall crush the heel of the woman’s seed. And, conversely, the woman’s seed shall crush the serpent’s head. Therein is present, in principle, the doctrine of the atonement. The evil one and the power of evil can be overcome only if they are permitted to harm their foes. It had to be permitted that the serpent wound the woman’s seed in the heel. The serpent has to bite His heel and so pour the poison of death into Him, so that He becomes the serpent lifted up (John 3:14–15). But just because the serpent strikes at His heel with its bite, He has been given the opportunity to bring down His heel on its head. It can strike Him only from below, that is, in such a position that it becomes possible for Him to kill it when it bites. This is linked to the curse pronounced on it: “On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life” [Gen 3:14]. Because sin is cursed, the serpent can kill, but because it kills from the power of a curse and not by a blind law of nature, the possibility exists that killing by sin becomes the killing of sin. Since the serpent bites in the heel from the earth, it can be pushed down into the earth by the heel of the Serpent Trampler and crushed.

h)   Among the seed of the woman we understand not only, but certainly in the deepest sense, Christ. He is the seed of the woman, as He was the seed of Abraham. In Him, all who are at enmity with the serpent have their unity. In fact, it was already not the natural seed in the wider sense that was meant by the seed of the woman. It was the spiritual seed that would not be the serpent’s seed. And as Paul says (in Galatians 3) that Abraham’s seed consisted partly in believers and partly in Christ, without the one excluding the other, so it will also be here. In a deeper sense, only the natural descendants of the woman are the true seed of the woman, since they belong to Christ. And Christ is also in a literal sense the seed of the woman. In order to triumph in the conflict against the serpent, He had to be born from a woman, from the mother of all living, and share in our human nature, and at the same time be more than man. After all, it was a conflict not against human powers but against the serpent, thus against a higher, spiritual, demonic power that must be crushed here. Clearly the evil one is in the background.

The fact that our ancestors did not understand all this in detail is not relevant. But without doubt they would have grasped the heart of the matter. And no one with an eye for this protevangelium can deny that, in its substance, the covenant of grace was already present in paradise.

41. Where subsequently is mention made of a covenant of God with man?

In Genesis 6:13 and 9:9; and the following verses, between God and Noah. Here, however, it is said repeatedly that it is a covenant between God and every living soul, not excluding the animals. Thus it is not simply the covenant of grace. It is a covenant of nature.

42. What distinguishes the relationship in which God has placed Abraham to Himself?

a)   It was a formal covenant relationship. Not only were the elements of a covenant present, but it was now also openly called a covenant.

b)   It was the formation of a church separated from the world. Earlier there was nothing like that. There were gatherings of believers, but there was nothing delineated and separated from the rest of the world that one could call a church. Abraham receives a sacrament, by which in itself a line is drawn.

c)   It was the beginning of the particularistic administration of the covenant of the Old Testament, which later came out still more clearly. The church is limited to one race. Earlier, that was not the case.

d)   It comes out clearly that man, too, must appear as a party in this covenant. Abraham believed God, and God again and again repeats His appearances and His promises, as it were, to lead Abraham to believe and to act in faith. Therefore, Isaac was also born through miraculous power.

e)   It comes out more clearly than with Adam what are the spiritual benefits that God grants in His covenant. The Apostle Paul has taught us that Abraham was granted justification, adoption, conversion, etc. (Gal 3; 4:28).

f)   The covenant with Abraham already had a double side, one that had in view temporal benefits—like the promise of the land of Canaan, numerous descendants, protection against earthly enemies—and one that had in view spiritual benefits. Nevertheless, this is to be so understood that the earthly and temporal were not for their own sake, but rather so that they would provide a type of the spiritual and heavenly. Thus the Apostle Paul can say that the spiritual promises did not apply to all the seed, but to the spiritual seed, to those included in Christ. By that he meant that the physical children of Abraham with their temporal blessings were an exemplar of the people of God who through faith receive the spiritual benefits.

g)   One must not assume that by the establishing of the covenant with Abraham, his descendants only entered into an external covenant. They were in the full covenant of grace. But they were also in it in such a form that they entered into certain external relationships, something that became still more robust later at Sinai. The one does not exclude the other.

43. How is the covenant at Sinai to be assessed?

On this question, the most diverse opinions are prevalent. We first give the correct view. The Sinaitic covenant is not a new covenant as concerns the essence of the matter, but the old covenant of grace established with Abraham in somewhat changed form. The thesis that it must be a new covenant is usually derived from the fact that Paul so strongly accents the law over against the promises as different from them (e.g., Gal 3:17ff.). But thereby one thing is forgotten. Paul nowhere sets the Sinaitic covenant in its entirety over against the Abrahamic covenant, but always the law insofar as it came to function in the Sinaitic covenant. There is only one place that appears to be an exception to this: Galatians 4:21ff. Here, in fact, two covenants are set over against each other. But they are not the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic covenants. Rather, they are the earthly and the heavenly covenants—the covenant that originates from Mount Sinai and has its center in the earthly Jerusalem, and the covenant that originates from heaven and is concentrated in the Jerusalem that is above. This is very significant. Paul has not said: two covenants, the one originating from Mamre and the other from Sinai. He knew well that already with Abraham something of the Sinaitic side of the covenant was also present and that, conversely, after Sinai there was a continuation of the heavenly, spiritual side of the covenant of grace with the people of God. So with this passage, one gains nothing.

The children of Israel were in the covenant when they set out from Egypt. Precisely because they were in it, they were delivered from Egypt (Gen 15:13–14). There is not one word mentioned of a new relationship. The old was altered. And at the same time, there was something new. It consisted in the following considerations:

a)   Now, for the first time, the covenant with Israel rightly became a national covenant. The social life of Israel, its civil organization, its existence as a people, were brought directly into contact with the covenant of grace. These two were inextricably linked. One cannot say, “I want to leave the Jewish church but remain in the Jewish state.” Whoever left the church left the state. And one could leave the state only by being exterminated from the people. Properly speaking, there is discipline through censure in a certain sense, but not, properly speaking, discipline only through excommunication or cutting off from the church. The sanction was the death penalty. All this first came about at Sinai. Earlier, God Himself had cut off Ishmael and Esau from the covenant administration. Judicially, this is later no longer permitted.

b)   The covenant with Israel served in an emphatic manner to recall the strict demands of the covenant of works. To that end, the law of the Ten Commandments was presented so emphatically and engraved deeply in stone. This law was not, as Cocceius meant, simply a form for the covenant of grace. It truly contained the content of the covenant of works. But—and one should certainly note this—it contains this content as made serviceable for a particular period of the covenant of grace. It therefore says, for example, “I am the Lord your God.” Therefore, it also contains expressions that had reference specifically to Israel, and thus are not totally applicable to us (e.g., “that it may be well with you in the land that the Lord your God gives you”). But also, beyond the Decalogue, there is reference to the law as a demand of the covenant of works (e.g., Lev 18:5; Deut 27:26; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 9). It is for this reason that in the last cited passage, Paul calls the ministry of Moses a ministry of condemnation. This simply shows how the demand of the law comes more to the fore in this dispensation of the covenant of grace. This ministry of the law had a twofold purpose: (1) It is a disciplinarian until Christ. (2) It serves to multiply sin—that is, both to lure sin out from its hidden inner recesses as well as to bring it to consciousness (cf. Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15; 5:13). Paul teaches expressly that the law did not appear here as an independent covenant of works in Galatians 3:19ff. That the law is also not a summary of the covenant of grace appears from the absence of the demand of faith and of the doctrine of the atonement.

c)   The covenant with Israel had a ceremonial and a typical ministry, fixed in its details. That was also already so in part for the earlier administration of the covenant of grace. But to the degree that it now came about, that ceremonial ministry was something new. A formal gospel preaching was offered continually by symbols and types. A priestly class came into existence. Earlier, every father of a family was a priest. Now, particular persons are separated and consecrated for this function. One must consider all these types and symbols from two points of view: (1) as demands of God on the people; (2) as a proclamation of God to the people. God had appointed them to serve in both respects. But the Jews overlooked the latter aspect more and more and made the types and symbols exclusively serve the former purpose. That is to say, they used them only as additions to a self-willed covenant of works, and misunderstood the ministering significance they had for the covenant of grace. So the opinion arose that righteousness had to be obtained by keeping that law in the broadest sense of the word, including the ceremonial law. And by this misuse, the covenant of grace of Sinai was in fact made into a Hagarite covenant, a covenant giving birth to servitude, as Paul describes it in Galatians 4:24. There he has in view not the covenant as it should be, but as it could easily become through misuse.

d)   The law given by God also served as a rule of life for Israel. So, we obtain a threefold law: the moral, the ceremonial, the civil law. This civil law was a particular application of the principles of the moral law. For example, in the moral law God says in general, “You shall not steal.” The civil law further elaborates what constitutes stealing, what penalties apply, etc., etc. At the same time, this law as a rule of life for civil concerns was elaborated in such a way that it provided a model for the spiritual relationship to God of the members of the covenant. Israel must bring its tithes, firstfruits, drink- and vow-offerings; and in doing that the dedication of the covenant member to God was also foreshadowed in the covenant of grace. No one from Israel may be a slave, for every Israelite is as such already totally God’s possession. Even the land of the children of Israel is God’s property; they are merely sojourners and aliens toward God, who live from what is His. So, too, in civil relationships in Israel, in the civil side of the covenant, the essence of the covenant of grace is mirrored.

44. Is this covenant that God established with Israel capable of being broken or not?

It is not only capable of being broken, but also has been broken repeatedly. Then a covenant renewal is necessary, as comes out in Exodus 34:10ff. and 2 Kings 23:3. Actually, all sin is covenant breaking, but still this covenant is such that God Himself has ordained a means to preserve the covenant in spite of those sins. This means are the sacrifices. They are applicable to sins that are not committed with uplifted hands; that is, sins through error, unintentional sins. But, also, even when an intentional sin is committed, God still does not forsake His covenant. Where the appointed means of propitiation is lacking, God comes with extraordinary seeking grace, remembers His covenant, maintains it in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness (Exod 32; Psa 106:23; Num 16:45–50). Finally, it is expressed clearly that the covenant with Israel is eternal (1 Chr 16:17; Isa 54:10; Psa 89:1–5), a covenant to which God has pledged the honor of His name (Isa 48:8–11; Num 14:16). In this pledge, therefore, it is essentially settled that God guarantees the continuation of the covenant of grace, that it is eternal in a different sense than the covenant of works, that however much individuals may fall away and be lost, the core of the covenant remains and must remain—so, entirely the same thing we established earlier about the covenant of grace in general.

45. How can it be said in Deuteronomu 5:2 and 3 that God did not make the covenant at Horeb with the fathers, if it is still one covenant?

This must be understood not of the substance, but of the form of the covenant closure. With Abraham and the patriarchs, God had not established the covenant of grace in its Sinaitic design—that is what Moses means here. Thus by “the fathers” is meant the patriarchs, not the forefathers in Egypt (Calvin) or those who perished in the wilderness (Augustine). It is clear from subsequent places how Scripture regards the Sinaitic covenant as a continuation of the covenant with Abraham: Exod 2:24, “And God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”; Leviticus 26:42, “Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, with Isaac, with Abraham” (Deut 4:31; 2 Kgs 13:23). Again and again, there is a continual pointing back to the covenant with Abraham to show that the children of Israel were in that covenant.

46. What are the deviating positions regarding that Sinaitic covenant of grace?

a)   The view of Cocceius and his followers. Cocceius was a proponent of a trichotomy, that is, a three part division of administering the covenant of grace. There was:

1.   An administration from Adam to Moses.

2.   An administration from Moses to Christ.

3.   An administration after Christ.

Or, expressed otherwise: ante legem—sub lege—post legem, that is: before the law, under the law, after the law.

The last period unfolds in seven stages that correspond to the seven letters, seven trumpets, seven seals of Revelation.

Regarding the establishing of the covenant at Sinai, Cocceius taught that the Decalogue was a summary of the covenant of grace, made especially applicable to Israel. However, after the establishment of this gracious covenant upon the 10 words, when Israel became unfaithful and fell into worship of the golden calf and broke the covenant, then as punishment the legal covenant of ceremonial institutions was established, that is, the covenant of grace as a much more rigorous and harsher administration. The servitude of the law first appears after the worship of the golden calf. And the element of servitude is found in the ceremonial law; that of grace, on the other hand, in the law of the Ten Commandments. The fathers who lived before Sinai were under freedom, under promise. According to the Cocceian understanding, the Old Testament first begins at Sinai. God did not give a law to the patriarchs. Cocceius taught of the pre-Mosaic sacrifices that they were not commanded by God but were free ceremonies that could be neglected without guilt. The Cocceian view of the Sabbath was also related to this judgment about the pre-Mosaic freedom and the Decalogue as a temporary formulation before the covenant of grace. It was thought that the Sabbath was not mandatory.

b)   A second conception does better justice to the legal nature of the Ten Commandments. They are regarded as a form of a new covenant of works that God established with Israel. God did not establish it with the intent that by it Israel could earn life, for through sin that had become completely impossible. The aim was to allow them to attempt it in their own strength. In Egypt, they had lost the awareness of their impotence. This awareness had to be revived, and the new covenant of works served that end. “They were puffed up as it were with an absurd confidence in themselves and said, ‘All that the Lord has said we will do.’ ” God then gives them the law. But when they saw the terrifying display of the smoking and burning mountain, of the dark cloud and the lightning, they soon perceived that they could not live by this covenant of works and therefore asked for Moses to be their mediator. In connection with the consciousness of guilt awakened in this way, God renewed with Israel the Abrahamic covenant of grace, as recorded in Exodus 24, to which the Levitical laws also belonged. “The Book of the Covenant” was thus the summary of the covenant of grace, not the Decalogue engraved on stone tablets. In the ceremonial laws that were added later, the gospel element was resident. This is thus an opposite view from Cocceius and his school.

c)   According to a third conception, at Sinai God established not two but even three covenants with Israel:

1.   A national covenant.

2.   A covenant of nature or of works.

3.   A covenant of grace.

The first of these was made with all the Israelites, without exception, and was a continuation of the setting apart of one nation, the extension of the particular line that begins with Abraham. In this covenant, God promised Israel temporal blessings, and required in turn civic, external obedience. The prophets lament the violation of this national covenant through idolatry.

The second covenant was a repetition of the covenant of works and was established by the proclamation of the Decalogue. The promise of life and the threatening of death were solemnly uttered anew.

The third covenant was the renewing of the covenant of grace established with Abraham and was sealed through the announcement of the ceremonial law (thus Mestricht, VIII, Chapter II).

47. What objections must be made against all these proposals?

a)   That they are against the presentation of Scripture in multiplying the covenants. Never and nowhere is it presented as if more than one covenant was established at Sinai.

b)   That they are in part wrong where they wish to limit the moral law or the ceremonial law entirely to one of these covenants. This cannot be achieved. We have already seen how, for example, the ceremonial law had a double aspect. These were demands that had to be fulfilled and that, through the impossibility of complete fulfillment, should drive people to Christ. At the same time, they were types and symbols that pointed to Christ and pictured Christ. Thus the ceremonial law of itself already appeared under the two covenants that one wishes to separate. It is likewise so with the moral law. In it occur features that recall the covenant of grace. It is not simply a law of the covenant of works. The promise of eternal life is not clearly expressed in it. And explanations that do present this promise occur in the midst of the ceremonial law.

48. Does the covenant of grace continue in the days of the New Testament?

Yes. This is already repeatedly foretold in the old day, for example, in Jeremiah 31:33. The Savior assumes this in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, where He speaks of His blood of the covenant. In the Letter to the Hebrews, it is said in so many words (ch. 9). Also, the continuity of the Old Testament and the New Testament church is taught everywhere in the New Testament. The church of the New Testament has not come about as a new aggregate of individuals next to the old covenant people, but developed from it in a covenantal manner. Zacchaeus was converted because he is a son of Abraham, and with that conversion, salvation came to his house [Luke 19:9]. The Jews for the most part apostatized, but they were not all put aside so that the Gentiles simply take their place. Rather, the Gentiles were grafted as branches on the domesticated olive tree to share in the rich oil of the covenant (Rom 11). “The promise is to you and your children” (Acts 2:39; 3:25). The name “people of God” also continues in use. From all this, it is clear that the covenant continues.

49. Is the covenant under the administration of the new day different from the earlier covenant?

Not in essence; certainly in form. It contains greater blessings. Its essence and its benefits are more clearly revealed. It extends to all nations. It no longer has a ceremonial and typological service. The record of sin that was against us has been destroyed or nailed to the cross [Col 2:14]. There are no longer intermediaries between the believing covenant member and God, except the one Mediator, Christ. The Holy Spirit has been poured out. The glory of Christ Himself is beheld in the mirror of the gospel. There will be no more change in administration until the end of the world.

50. Should the administration of the covenant of grace be divided into two or three parts?

The division into two is the best and the oldest. There was an administration before Christ and an administration after Christ. It is true that there is a noteworthy difference to be observed between the administration before Moses and the one after Moses, but this was not such a difference that what these two time periods had in common, in contrast with the new dispensation, was lost. What is common to the time before Christ consists:

a)   In the conception of the Mediator as a seed that was still to come, thus a pointing forward to the historical Christ. So it was with Adam as well as Abraham and throughout the whole Old Testament.

b)   In the foreshadowing of the Mediator through ceremonies and types. These may have become more systematic after Sinai, but they were already there earlier.

c)   In the foreshadowing of the destiny of the spiritual members of the covenant in the earthly fortunes of the covenant communities among whom God carried out His covenant. The liberation from Egypt, the occupation of Canaan, etc., all pointed forward to higher spiritual events. The points of difference between the pre-Mosaic time and the post-Mosaic time are the following:

1.   In the patriarchal era, the gracious character of the covenant was more obvious (cf. Gal 3:18). Precisely because Israel was once more deliberately reminded of the demand of the covenant of works, there existed the possibility of misunderstanding, as if this was the way to salvation. And in fact, the Israel of a later era fell into this error.

2.   The spiritual nature of the benefits of the covenant was better understood in the patriarchal era (Heb 11:9–10). Abraham and the patriarchs were sojourners and not owners of the land. The temporal promise had not yet been fulfilled for them. But just for that reason there was less danger for them that they would look exclusively on the temporary, as the Jews did later. They still had a clear vision of the Jerusalem that is above, the future city (Gal 4:25–26).

3.   The world-encompassing goal of the covenant of grace came out more clearly. To Abraham it was said that in his seed all families of the earth would be blessed (Gal 3:8). Later, the Jews lost sight of this, and then they thought that salvation was tied to their nationality. Only later, during the flowering of prophecy, the awareness was also more enlivened that God’s promises were world-encompassing.

The last two characteristics, the spiritual and the catholic, moreover, go together. Paul is raised up by God as the great champion for both.

We therefore distinguish:

I.    Before Christ

a)   From Adam to Abraham—no sacrament

b)   From Abraham to Moses—one sacrament

c)   From Moses to Christ—two sacraments

II.  After Christ, until the end of the ages.

↑ Back to top