Covenant Theology - Covenant of Grace vs Covenant of Works

When I first ventured into Covenant Theology (CT) and interacted with reformed Baptists on the BDR forum (unfortunately that thread is no longer accessible) which seems like eons ago, I was a bit skeptical of systemizing God's covenants. But in hindsight, if I believe that all the covenants did not come about haphazardly and that the Lord had ordained this since the beginning of time, then there must be a system to be discovered by which these covenants were specifically designed for.

I'm not going to use this specific post to lay out what Covenant Theology is, but rather to use this as the medium to continue my discussions with a group of friends on this topic. What I'm finding among reformed folks are varying understandings of the two of the three (albeit, some folks do not distinguish the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption) main entities that make up the framework of Covenant Theology, which are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. These covenants are often termed as overarching theological covenants, in a sense that the terms themselves are not found in the Bible but cover over a series of covenants found in the Bible.

It is my understanding that the Covenant of Works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam (Genesis 2:15) and the Covenant of Grace covers all(?) the covenants that God made with man beyond Genesis 2. Now I say all with a question mark because there seems to be an ongoing debate on where the Mosaic Covenant falls. In my initial exposure of CT I have found that the role of the Mosaic Covenant plays in CT is interpreted differently between Reformed paedobaptists and Reformed baptists. It is my understanding that the Reformed paedobaptists views the Mosaic Covenant as part of the Covenant of Grace, whereas Reformed baptists are rather split on this issue. Clearly there are some differences in how Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists view Covenant Theology by just viewing the differences between the Westminister Confession and the London Baptist Confession, particular in the sections of "Of God's Covenant" ... what exactly that difference is, I'm still trying to figure out. This debate is generally centered on Hebrews 8-10 where Paul discusses the differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. This concept of unifying the covenants under the Covenant of Grace has led the paedobaptists to tie the Old Testament covenants and New Covenant so closely that they have viewed the Old Testament covenants as a model to the New Covenant. This is their justification for applying the sign or symbol of the New Covenant (water baptism) in the same manner that circumcision was applied in the Abrahamic covenant (applied to all under the household ... well in this case males only ... regardless of faith). As it seems the overarching nature of the Covenant of Grace is carried too far to the point of neglecting what the New Testament speaks concerning the nature and application of baptism.

Among the articles that was referred to me on the BDR discussion was Dr. Masters' article, titled Perfect and Faulty Covenants. Needless to say, this article created more questions for me than answers I had sought for. I was a bit confused by this article because it is as if Dr. Masters had portrayed the Mosaic Covenant as falling under the Covenant of Works. I wondered if I had misread Dr. Masters paper because a friend who studied under Masters has drawn this CT diagram of the covenants and it is to my understanding that he agrees with Dr. Masters, and yet he didn't draw the Mosaic Covenant falling under the Covenant of Works. Out of curiosity I referred other Reformed baptists to this article and they too thought that Dr. Masters categorized the Mosaic Covenant as the Covenant of Works. One Reformed baptist (Paul) has given me permission to post his reply to me concerning Dr. Masters' article:

Hmmm, thought-provoking I'll say that.

I've haven't fully digested the article but I'll try and study it more in the next couple of days. At first glance there is much I agree with, but there are one or two things I think I would question.

This phrase struck me,

"The new covenant is that which we call the covenant of grace, which stands in opposition to the original covenant of works made with Adam."

I don't think I would be comfortable saying that the new covenant is the covenant of grace....no doubt about it the New Covenant is the completion of, most clear manifestation of, the climax of God's covenantal dealings with man....i.e it is the Covenant of Grace at it's fullest and most complete revelation, but to say that the NC is (=) CofG seems to suggest that it and it alone is a/the revelation/administration/revelation of the CofG, maybe that's not being fair to Masters, but that was my first thought.

Secondly, while it is true that the WCF Unity of the Covenant paragraph was dropped, I think it would be wrong to say that the idea of some unity of the covenants has been removed...Sam Waldron refers to the relationships between the covenants as organic unity. My criticism of the Presbyterian view is that over-emphasie the continuity and unity of the covenants, but that is not to say that there is no unity. I think Sam's view is slightly different from Fred Malone's which may be slightly more emphatic in expressing discontinuity.

I don't see how we can understand the BCF as teaching anything other than a unity of some kind between the covenants and that that unity is in some way related to what has been called different administrations...i.e. all the covenants are different and further revelations or administrations of the Covenant of Grace...

Thus we read in 7:2

2. Moreover Man having brought himself 119under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners,120Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and 121promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

Notice Covenant of Grace singular....and then the following paragraph described that singular Covenant.....

3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; by the 122seed of the woman, and first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvationafterwards by farther steps, untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Again surely the farther steps are the later covenants and if the Mosaic was excluded perhaps the authors would have said so.

A bigger problem I have is that if the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Works, which would kind of follow from the Doc's position, then obedience would have achieved salvation (as it would in the Garden, that however cannot be because in Hebrews 10:1-4 we specifically read that obedience to the law did not remove or deal with sin....

Hebrews 10:1-4 “1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.”

Of course Masters, I assume paraphrasing Owen, agrees with that....

"In short, the covenant made on Sinai declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God any other way but by the promise of grace made previously to Abraham. In representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless obedience, and threatening the penalty of the curse, it was designed to convince men that this was no way for them to seek life and salvation. And so it challenged men's consciences, insisting that they would have no rest nor peace apart from what the promise would give them."

But is it not that very symbolism and teaching aspect of the Mosaic covenant that shows that there is a intrinsic association and unity with the Covenant of Grace as it reveals the need of Christ and as it foreshadows and points to Christ?

So I suppose in answer to your question, I would say at this stage I don't think I would agree.....not with this statement at least, which seems novel,

"This was nothing less than a revival of the covenant of works. Furthermore, this covenant of Sinai had no gracious promise of eternal life joined to it."

Does the Abrahamic covenant have an explicit gracious promise of eternal life joined to it? Or the Davidic, or the Noahic?..they of course do but not in comparison to the New Covenant as expressed in Jeremiah 31 anyway. I think the Mosaic was gracious in that it restrained sin and pointed to the need of a Saviour.

The phrase "revival of the covenant of works" suggests to me that that covenant was in force again..obey and live.....but that is definitely not what the Mosaic covenant was about (see Hebrews 10:1-4).

Indeed as I looked through the article again this paragraph to my (admittedly tired) mind appears to be at odds with the last paragraph I quoted:

"In short, the covenant made on Sinai declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God any other way but by the promise of grace made previously to Abraham. In representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless obedience, and threatening the penalty of the curse, it was designed to convince men that this was no way for them to seek life and salvation. And so it challenged men's consciences, insisting that they would have no rest nor peace apart from what the promise would give them."

How can something that is a "revival of the covenant of works" at the same time declare the necessity of grace through the promises made through Abraham?

A little puzzling?

What are your thoughts?

Paul

Plenty of thoughts Paul and hence this post! :o) What I hope to do here is attempt to answer some of your questions. I hope the other folks that I've invited would join in, to help shed light in what Reformed baptists believe concerning God's covenants.

Here's some answers to your question:

1. Though I can't speak personally for Dr. Masters, I'm sure that when Dr. Masters conveyed that the "New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace", what he probably meant is that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace manifested. :o) Just as you stated. And I think he seems to make a similar mistake when he implies that the Mosaic Covenant falls under the Covenant of Works. Recently, I came across this article by Richard Barcellos, titled John Owen and New Covenant Theology, in where he speaks of John Owen's view concerning Hebrews 8-10. Though this article is largely about how NCT advocators (Reisenger and Wells) have misunderstood John Owen's understanding of the Mosaic and the New Covenant, NCT is not really what I want to focus on for this discussion (that's another separate discussion!). I know for certain that Dr. Masters is not an NCT advocator :o) and so it is safe to assume that what Rich wrote concerning his views of what John Owen meant in his understanding of the two covenants is probably what Dr. Masters hoped to convey in his article ... but maybe failed to do so (did that last sentence make sense to you, or was it too long?). :o) For instance Rich wrote (emphasis mine):

Owen did not view the old Covenant as a covenant of works in itself. He viewed it as containing a renewal of the original covenant of works imposed upon Adam in the Garden of Eden ...

Rich further wrote:

Reisinger appears to make the Old Covenant the first covenant of works, something Owen clearly denies. Reisinger also appears to make the Old Covenant contain in itself the promise of eternal life and the thread of eternal condemnation, thus necessitating Christ's obedience to it. Owen denies both of these ideas, saying:

This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was "the ministry of condemnation," 2 Cor. iii. 9; for "by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified." And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.

A little futher down Rich explains a bit more of Owen's view on the two covenants where he wrote:

In Sinclair Ferguson's John Owen on the Christian Life, cited by Wells in the Reisinger pamphlet, Ferguson also calls Owen's position on the Old Covenant a mediating position. But Ferguson's explanation of Owen's mediating position does not have to do with the relationship between the law of the Old Covenant and the Law of Christ (as per Wells above). In fact, Ferguson does not even discuss this matter in this section of his book. Instead, Ferguson's understanding of Owen's mediating position has to do with the nature and function of the Old Covenant and its relation the Adamic covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the New Covenant. Unlike others, Owen did not believe the the Old Covenant was a covenant of works in itself or simply an administration of the covenant of grace. In Ferguson's words:

Sinai should not then be thought of as the covenant of works; but Sinai does involve a renewal of the principles which partly constituted the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Sinai covenant cannot be thought of as the covenant of grace.

His [Owen's] conclusion then is that the Sinaitic covenant revived the commands, sanctions and promises of the covenant of works, and that when the apostle Paul disputes about works or law-righteousness it is the renovation of the Edenic covenant in the Sinaitic covenant he has in mind. Sinai therefore is a 'particular, temporary covenant ... and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.'

So what are your thoughts of these statements and that article? Is Dr. Masters' view really as novel as you say it is? But the real question is, is John Owen's assessment consistent with Scriptures. :o) As a Reformed Baptist, do you align with John Owen's view on this?

2. You have stated:

But is it not that very symbolism and teaching aspect of the Mosaic covenant that shows that there is a intrinsic association and unity with the Covenant of Grace as it reveals the need of Christ and as it foreshadows and points to Christ?

Yes it does. The Mosaic Covenant was to be the handmaid of the Gospel. It would lead men to Christ but only in that the covenant revealed sin and the difficulty of fulfilling its requirements. But this covenant that in itself is not gracious. The Mosaic Covenant was designed to show how far man fell from the requirements of God. No man could fulfill the requirements of this covenant but Christ himself. It was never designed so that man could succeed in fulfilling it, but only Christ. And it certainly laid up the ground work for Christ's life and mission.

You have stated:

Does the Abrahamic covenant have an explicit gracious promise of eternal life joined to it? Or the Davidic, or the Noahic?..they of course do but not in comparison to the New Covenant as expressed in Jeremiah 31 anyway. I think the Mosaic was gracious in that it restrained sin and pointed to the need of a Saviour.

I think what separates the covenants you've mentioned from the Mosaic, is that they spoke of a promise that required faith. I can't say the same for the Mosaic Covenant. What I find common with Genesis 2:15 and the Mosaic Covenant is they follow the same basic command --- "Do this and live".

I don't know that the Mosaic Covenant necessarily restrained sin. It's not gracious in the same way the other Covenants were. Earlier covenants were gracious, because they required nothing by those to whom the covenant was made with, other than to believe. But the Mosaic Covenant required obedience to the law and because it was impossible to comply, it brought death.

It states in Romans 7:8-13,

But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

That doesn't sound gracious to me. It brought death. Granted that the law itself is good, the sin in us seized the opportunity and brought about death. Did that caught God by surprise? No. He designed it exactly as it should, to show the sinfulness of man.

Just as God setup the stage in Genesis 2:15 by which Adam would fall, so God had setup a similar stage when He presented the Mosaic Covenant, by which Christ would succeed --- that is in fulfilling the passive and active obedience of the law. Yes, it was a covenant made with Israel, but also by which Christ was bound by. Because of the covenant made between the God heads (Covenant of Redemption), the elect would inherit the blessings of Christ's passive and active obedience of the law, where faith is only required for the elect (now this is gracious!). But this blessing/inheritance is the New Covenant. As it states in Romans 5:17-21,

For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The grace it mentions is not in reference to the Mosaic Covenant but to the New Covenant. What I find in these verses is the contrast between the law (Mosaic Covenant) and the grace found in the New Covenant.


Let me just say more one thing --- the danger I see in systemizing God's covenants, is how we constraint ourselves in this man made framework call Covenant Theology. The sense that I get from some reformed folks is this need to have every covenant beyond Genesis 2, to fall under this "Covenant of Grace". The data (which is the Scriptures) should be governing the framework, not vice versa. It's not to say that I have chucked CT out the window ... but we shouldn't restrained ourselves on this idea that every covenant beyond Genesis 2 MUST fall under the Covenant of Grace. Yes I believe every covenant was design to lay the foundations for the coming Messiah, but let's give ourselves a little wiggle room as far as how each covenant should be interpreted. This is the apprehension I have in labeling these covenants under theological concepts created by man, because there's a great danger of being faulty. There's no reason why we should force every covenant to fit in this Covenant of Grace. Anomalies are even common within His creation, so why not have a covenant that differs from the rest? My idea of formulating such a system, is to have the freedom to reform it closer and closer to the truth, regardless of what CT might have been historically.