Covenants in Teaching / Preaching

[msortwell]

Covenant Theology developed from the observation that God has worked throughout redemptive history (and prehistory) via a sequence of interrelated covenants. Often, the covenants in view are: 1) Covenant of Redemption, 2) Covenant of Works, 3) Covenant of Grace, 4) Noahic Covenant, 5) Abrahamic Covenant, 6) Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), 7) Davidic Covenant, and 8) The New Covenant in Christ.

Reformed pastors and teachers are, presumably, well versed in this system (or some version of it), but it has been my experience that preaching/teaching rarely SPECIFICALLY articulates the covenantal context of truths being taught. Jesus is properly described as a reigning king, but that He fulfilled the Davidic Covenant as the eternal king is seldom mentioned. It seems that the rank-and-file are seldom reminded that those baptized into Christ are thereby the children of the promise made to the patriarch Abraham. To sustain a sound view of our current redeemed status, and our sure future, it seems necessary that we be frequently reminded that the true Old Testament people of God (those Paul would later call those who were Jews inwardly) were under both the rule of the Mosaic Covenant AND the grace of the Abrahamic – grace that is available only through the Christ of God.

It seems important that this be a PART of the knowledge base of those in the pews of reformed churches. Otherwise are we not likely to interpret the word taught/preached incorrectly?

 

[msortwell]

Reworded the initial post to focus on my main point of interest.

 

[mercy1061]

Covenant Theology developed from the observation that God has worked throughout redemptive history (and prehistory) via a sequence of interrelated covenants. Often, the covenants in view are: 1) Covenant of Redemption, 2) Covenant of Works, 3) Covenant of Grace, 4) Noahic Covenant, 5) Abrahamic Covenant, 6) Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), 7) Davidic Covenant, and 8) The New Covenant in Christ.

Reformed pastors and teachers are, presumably, well versed in this system (or some version of it), but it has been my experience that preaching/teaching rarely SPECIFICALLY articulates the covenantal context of truths being taught. Jesus is properly described as a reigning king, but that He fulfilled the Davidic Covenant as the eternal king is seldom mentioned. It seems that the rank-and-file are seldom reminded that those baptized into Christ are thereby the children of the promise made to the patriarch Abraham. To sustain a sound view of our current redeemed status, and our sure future, it seems necessary that we be frequently reminded that the true Old Testament people of God (those Paul would later call those who were Jews inwardly) were under both the rule of the Mosaic Covenant AND the grace of the Abrahamic – grace that is available only through the Christ of God.

It seems important that this be a PART of the knowledge base of those in the pews of reformed churches. Otherwise are we not likely to interpret the word taught/preached incorrectly?

We must first start from the beginning, that is Adam. A covenant is an official agreement. Adam was placed in the garden to care for it, a command was given to Adam. Adam fell into a deep sleep. I am unsure that Adam had an actual covenant or if Adam agreed to the covenant, some say that "silence" means agreement to the terms. However, maybe he never agreed, that is why he was caused to fall into a deep sleep. I disagree, "silence" does not always mean agreement to the terms of the contract.

 

[msortwell]

We must first start from the beginning, that is Adam. A covenant is an official agreement. Adam was placed in the garden to care for it, a command was given to Adam. Adam fell into a deep sleep. I am unsure that Adam had an actual covenant or if Adam agreed to the covenant, some say that "silence" means agreement to the terms. However, maybe he never agreed, that is why he was caused to fall into a deep sleep. I disagree, "silence" does not always mean agreement to the terms of the contract.

There are those Covenant Theology enthusiasts that spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and describing various forms of covenants. I have to confess that I rarely find such discussions engaging. However, one seemingly helpful observation that they make is that, when a relationship involves one member that is absolutely sovereign over the other(s), there is no requirement for mutual agreement between the participants. The sovereign one may, at His sole discretion, make a covenant with the other. He has full authority to establish both the conditions of the "contract," the blessings of conforming, and any penalties for non-conformance. I believe the Covenant of Works, made by God with Adam, is such a covenant. It seems to me that an attempt to find Adam's concurrence isn't really essential.

 

[mercy1061]

There are those Covenant Theology enthusiasts that spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and describing various forms of covenants. I have to confess that I rarely find such discussions engaging. However, one seemingly helpful observation that they make is that, when a relationship involves one member that is absolutely sovereign over the other(s), there is no requirement for mutual agreement between the participants. The sovereign one may, at His sole discretion, make a covenant with the other. He has full authority to establish both the conditions of the "contract," the blessings of conforming, and any penalties for non-conformance. I believe the Covenant of Works, made by God with Adam, is such a covenant. It seems to me that an attempt to find Adam's concurrence isn't really essential.

I think there is only one covenant; without faith it is impossible to please G-d. I never read in scripture a covenant called the "covenant of works".

 

[msortwell]

I think there is only one covenant; without faith it is impossible to please G-d. I never read in scripture a covenant called the "covenant of works".

In its simplest form, a covenant is merely a solemn agreement which includes an oath or a promise. This agreement also includes sanctions (i.e., penalties and/or rewards).

Gen 2:16-17 documents the establishment of a covenant.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it [sovereignly established agreement]: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [sanction - penalty].

Foregoing the eating of the forbidden fruit was the work required to remain obedient to the established covenant - required to avoid the penalty.

But, I suspect you knew all of this.

Blessings

 

[Light of the East]

Covenant Theology developed from the observation that God has worked throughout redemptive history (and prehistory) via a sequence of interrelated covenants. Often, the covenants in view are: 1) Covenant of Redemption, 2) Covenant of Works, 3) Covenant of Grace, 4) Noahic Covenant, 5) Abrahamic Covenant, 6) Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant), 7) Davidic Covenant, and 8) The New Covenant in Christ.

Reformed pastors and teachers are, presumably, well versed in this system (or some version of it), but it has been my experience that preaching/teaching rarely SPECIFICALLY articulates the covenantal context of truths being taught. Jesus is properly described as a reigning king, but that He fulfilled the Davidic Covenant as the eternal king is seldom mentioned. It seems that the rank-and-file are seldom reminded that those baptized into Christ are thereby the children of the promise made to the patriarch Abraham. To sustain a sound view of our current redeemed status, and our sure future, it seems necessary that we be frequently reminded that the true Old Testament people of God (those Paul would later call those who were Jews inwardly) were under both the rule of the Mosaic Covenant AND the grace of the Abrahamic – grace that is available only through the Christ of God.

It seems important that this be a PART of the knowledge base of those in the pews of reformed churches. Otherwise are we not likely to interpret the word taught/preached incorrectly?

There is only one covenant. It is the covenant of God. There is no such thing as the "Covenant of Works." There are not eight, or ten, thirteen, or twenty different covenants. If you understand Sutton's five principles of a covenant, you will understand why this is so.

God's covenant relationship with mankind begins with Adam. Adam is the son of God (Luke 3: 38). In the understanding of sonship, Adam was created into a covenant relationship. He did not have to "cut covenant" with his Father to be in covenant with the Father. The covenant extended to him automatically, just as when I had my children, they were part of the covenant unit which was my family. No child comes to its parents at the bogus "age of reason" and asks to "cut covenant" with its parents. The child is born into the covenant unit.

When God comes to Abraham, notice the language He uses when He offers covenant to Abraham. "....and I will establish my covenant with you...." God does not use language which says "And I will establish a covenant with you...." No, it is my covenant, which indicates the pre-existence of the eternal covenant relationship which is the Trinity. Abraham is invited to be the next Adam, the federal head of the new congregation which is to begin with him. Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15: 45), the one who succeeds in keeping the requirements of covenant and restoring the Edenic relationship of mankind to the Father.

 

[Light of the East]

In its simplest form, a covenant is merely a solemn agreement which includes an oath or a promise. This agreement also includes sanctions (i.e., penalties and/or rewards).

Gen 2:16-17 documents the establishment of a covenant.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it [sovereignly established agreement]: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [sanction - penalty].

Foregoing the eating of the forbidden fruit was the work required to remain obedient to the established covenant - required to avoid the penalty.

But, I suspect you knew all of this.

Blessings

Like every covenant relationship and family, there are ethics in the family (rules of relationship). When you violate the rules, you strain, break, or even terminate the covenant, depending upon the severity of the offense.

I would prefer to say that the forebearing of the forbidden fruit was not a "work" to remain obedient, but rather God explaining to His newly created son the ethics of the relationship and what was necessary to stay in relationship with Him.