How Many Covenants are There?

[Josheb]

I subscribe to a form of Covenant Theology (CT) known as "Progressive Covenantalism."* The basic premise of PC is that there is only one covenant and that covenant is with between the Father and the Son, not primarily between God and an individual man or group of men. This covenant is revealed to humanity incrementally, with each revelation adding information not previously known or understood. God reveals Himself progressively. Some PCers subscribe to the classic CT model where two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, exist. I reject that premise in favor of a single covenant we have through Jesus alone that is by grace alone.

The chief reason I reject that two-covenant premise is because neither term is found in scripture. This is more so with the "covenant of works" than with a "covenant of grace" because scripture does speak indirectly about grace as intrinsic part of God's covenant (especially from the soteriological monergist pov), so the inferences are not difficulty to create. The problem is I'd prefer to stick with scripture exactly as written as much as possible and there isn't any reason to create theological constructs such as COW or COG. Along with the silence of scripture regarding these two extra-biblical constructs is the fact the Genesis account never calls what God said a covenant. I believe a covenant can be inferred and readily and easily so, but the ease of the inference is not proof of validity. However, because the criteria for a covenant exist in Eden I will, for the sake of this thread concede the existence of a covenant involving God, Adam, and Eve. Anyone wanting to know more about the possible covenant criteria can ask and I'll elaborate.

Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity, what we read about in Genesis 1-3 is a covenant initiated by God based solely on God's will, purpose, and action. Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity He chose the participants, and He did so without asking any human if they wanted to be chosen, selected, or elected. Like all the covenants... God called the participants He'd chosen and He called them without asking any of them if they wanted to be called. Like all the covenants... God then commanded them, and He commanded them without asking if they wanted to be commanded and with an expectation of obedience. The main point I am making is that all of these aspects are monergistic, not synergistic. It is only after all I just listed has occurred that any human covenant participant is ever offered any choice. All of this is evident in Eden.

Although this op is NOT about soteriology, I will note that all monergism - by definition - occurs solely by grace. God does not have to act, and He does not have to act (or think, or will, or purpose) in any particular way, especially not in any way He doesn't want to act. He acts as He pleases and as far as humanity goes because God is the omni-attributed sovereign Creator, it is ALL by grace and grace alone. Because He is sovereign He is grace-ous, not the other way around.

The above is very important to understand because God does expect action, or work, from those He commands. He expects obedience. Obedience is work. In NT terms, faith begets faithfulness, and there has never been a point anywhere in creation where the righteous were not supposed to live by faith. This is just as true of Adam and Eve as it is Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, Pharoah and Moses, Ahab and Elijah, Herod and John, and everyone else in the Bible. It even applies to those outside the covenant! God expects to be honored by all. However, after Genesis 3:6-7 the only reason anyone exists is because of divine grace. My point here is that an expectation works will be performed is not absent, but it is not a separate covenant. Works are an intrinsic part of an already established covenant, not an alternative to, or the means of entrance into, a covenant.


Most important in understanding the one-covenant model, however, is the fact of the tree of life. That existed by grace. No matter what else Adam and Eve did or did not do, the tree of life was there for them, and it was there for them by grace and grace alone. Some have argued it was a reward for good work or good performance but that is a complete falsehood, proven incorrect by God's statement A&E were free to eat from any tree in the garden except the forbidden one (Gen 2:16-17). Later in scripture we learn that the tree of life is Jesus or perhaps, more specifically, the resurrection (which may be a difference without distinction since Jesus is the resurrection). Much later in scripture, when Abraham has his vision of the covenant God has initiated involving him, he sees the symbols of God (smoke and fire) walking through a description of a suzerain covenant.** in this vision the symbols of God proceed through the halved carcasses pledging fealty to God - God pledging fealty to God. Abraham is not the one walking through the sundered meat! He is not the one pledging fealty to God. Due to Paul's writings we know that covenant was made with Abraham and Jesus, the promised seed. Through Luke and Peter's writings we know the role Jesus would play was foreknown before any human had been created. As we read the entire Bible God overwhelmingly speaks of the covenant in singular conjugation and connects whatever new aspect He is revealing to prior revelations.***

All of it decided before a single atom was spoken into existence and all of it revealed to us incrementally in increasing revelation until we reach the other side of resurrection and know all.



Closing note: My disdain for adding to scripture things nowhere stated prompts my interest and adherence to PC. I firmly believe CT is a much better model for understanding scripture than the alternative of Dispensationalism. What CT has done theologically adding a covenant of works and covenant of grace to scripture is multiplied exponentially by Dispensationalism. Any reader of the Bible can open the Bible and actually find the word "covenant" marking or punctuating human history. The word "dispensation" is imposed on the text, not stated by scripture itself to mark history. That is an invention solely of Dispensational theologians working from John Darby's work in the 19th century. Just as there is no mention of "covenant of works," scripture never labels the assumed errors as dispensations but it does label them with the term "covenant." It's not okay to make up stuff without some degree of actual statement from scripture, imo. The covenant model also provides continuity where dispensation does not.****


I am aware this op is spare on scripture (and I have just argued for the necessity of explicit scripture . That's by design because walking through the exegesis will take multiple pages of posts, I assume most of the readers know the scripture well enough to self-identify the relevant verses, and the op is simply a starting point providing plenty of basis for comment and inquiry. I ask only that the conversation focus on covenantalism, not Dispensationalism. I won't be discussing the latter in this thread.



















*Anyone interested in learning more about PC should start with Stephen Wellum.
**I can explain the basics of a suzerain covenant for those who don't know. Just ask.
***The word "covenants" in plural form is used only twice in the entire Bible.
****This matter of continuity is currently being debated in the halls of theology and academia and causing another huge division in Christendom.
.

 

[Arial]

I agree with the premise of one covenant, and that being the Covenant of Redemption that existed with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before creation and not after creation and the fall of man. To this I might add Ps 111, which I was reading this morning, as I go through the Psalms, reach the end, and start back at the beginning again. Though that is not the only Bible reading I do any day. But it is so pertinent to your OP and those I also posted. I will not quote the entire Psalm but it really needs to be read to get the full impact, for in it we see this Covenant of Redemption, but just vv 7-9.

The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy; they are established forever and ever, to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness. He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant forever. Holy and awesome is his name!

Not to rabbit trail into dispensation but a side note only. Whenever the d'ist reads the words covenant or my people in the OT they apply it strictly to the Mosaic covenant and national/ethnic Israel and therein warp everything both in the value of covenant, the value of the OT to believers, salvation, and eschatology. This Psalm in particular is about the pre-creation covenant of redemption, and all His people in Christ.

That covenant runs through and alongside the distinct covenant with Israel---originally made with Abraham both as land grant covenant, and properly a covenant of works but not a covenant of redemption in and of itself, and righteousness by faith---a unilateral covenant. So I do not agree that it is wrong to make the distinction in conversation. It is equally important to recognize that it is only a progressive part of redemption, serving a particular purpose, and not the Covenant of Redemption itself.

As to the Covenant of Grace, I agree that it can and has presented incorrect understandings, but mainly I think that is probably because a great many Christians do not recognize the Covenant of Redemption for what it is (they conflate the two) or that it was a covenant with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before creation. Nevertheless, the Covenant of Redemption is pure grace. And salvation is by grace and this comes to us in the New Covenant. The old covenant, which does refer to Israel and address Israel was fulfilled by Christ---that is, the mandatory perfect righteousness that always was and always will be mandatory---so that temporary relationship of God with man through animal sacrifices, could come to fruition in fullness. The shedding of the blood of the covenant by Righteousness Himself, tearing open the curtain that kept us from approaching God in our sinfulness. He washes us clean. His righteousness counted as ours. And the power of sin and death over us, destroyed. The curse of the Law nailed to His cross. It is called a New Covenant, not because it did not previously exist as the covenant in Ps 111, but because it met its consummation in Christ, rendering the old null and void. He has completed the work of salvation and now we await the fullness of the promise of all His enemies being utterly destroyed forever.

As for me, I think one of the most important things to learn about covenant is what it is when it involves God's (and only God) making them with mankind. It is a relationship, personal, faithful, trustworthy, never changing, with the covenant community and with each individual in that community---all the time and in every place. He sees, He hears, He knows.

Sorry I carried on so long---I think as I go---and hope I have not detracted from the OP.

@Josheb