← Back to sermon library

Father, we are grateful for your 
mercies, which are like you, from everlasting to everlasting. 
We're not worthy of them. They're conferred upon us. They 
were granted to us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 
promised in the Old Testament, brought to actual accomplishment. by the Lord Jesus and His sufferings 
and entrance into glory, applied to our souls in space and time 
on the earth by the blessed ministry of the Holy Spirit, bringing 
the fruits of Christ's redemption from heaven, from the mediator 
to our souls, and making us new people, men and women, who repent, 
believe, are united to Christ, justified, adopted in the process 
of sanctification, and because he's glorified, we're glorified 
and as good as glorified. And we pray that you'd help us 
to get our little minds around this massive subject of covenant 
theology and that we would go away from here better understanding 
your word, better able to put the parts together, better able 
to praise and honor your son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
the center of all of your special revelation inscripturated in 
the Bible, and better able to defend and proclaim the gospel 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. So bless us. We need help. We acknowledge we need it. We 
ask in Jesus' name. Amen. If you didn't bring a Hebrew 
or Greek text, that's good, because I won't be using any Hebrew or 
Greek. So if you have questions about that, you can ask your 
pastor. Covenant theology is a massive 
subject. It is a privilege, on the one 
hand, to be able to address the issue. And yet it's humbling, 
sobering, because I have three sessions. two today and then 
one for Sunday school tomorrow. And there's just no way to cover 
anything in real depth. So what we have to do is we have 
to do a flyover. We're going to fly over the Bible, 
looking at the high points of the Bible's teaching on the covenants. 
And I want to justify why we're going to do that and how we're 
going to do that. And the phrase covenant theology, I'm going 
to justify the use of that phrase in the process of these lectures. 
And the way I'm going to approach this is this. I'm going to ask 
five questions and answer as many as I can along the way. 
So in one sense I'm asking the questions. You guys don't have 
to ask questions later because I'm asking them. Actually the 
questions are simple. The answers are not simple. But 
here are the questions in case you're taking notes. What is 
a divine covenant? We need to know what we're talking 
about when we're talking about covenant theology. Second, what 
is covenant theology? Third, what is the new covenant? 
Fourth, why is the new covenant necessary? And fifth, what are 
some practical considerations in light of our study? So the 
first thing I want to do is ask and answer the question, what 
is a divine covenant? And I have three points under 
this. A basic definition. the specific concern, and for 
lack of a better word or phrase, further delineations. So what's 
the basic definition of a divine covenant? I think it was yesterday 
I told Pastor Butler, if you had 10 books on covenant theology 
and you're looking for a definition, how many definitions might you 
find? He said 10, which should cause me to be very 
careful in trying to define Covenant. I think that sometimes when you 
read books on covenant theology, you might hear a teacher or a 
preacher, a teacher preach on the subject. Quite often in defining 
covenant, they try to be all-inclusive. where you can take that word 
covenant and their definition and apply it to every single 
instance in the Bible where the word or concept covenant is used. 
That's not helpful to me, because the Bible doesn't use the word 
covenant or the concept covenant always in the same way. For instance, 
Old Palmer Robertson has a book that in many ways is very helpful, 
The Christ of the Covenants, which was the first book on covenant 
theology that I read in 1988, I think. Steve remembers those days. You 
were a year older than me back then. And you still are. And 
you always will be. O. Palmer Robertson, whose nephew 
was a fellow seminarian of mine, O. Palmer Robertson defined a 
covenant something like this, a sovereign oath and bond between 
God and man formally inaugurated through blood. And I used that 
for a while until you start reading the Bible and you realize, wait 
a minute, covenant is broader than that. Marriage is a covenant. 
And though some of us have bloody marriages, we didn't formally 
inaugurate our wedding through the shedding of blood. The blood 
came later. So I think that's too restricting, 
too narrow. So what I have done is tried 
to be very careful in defining covenant. And here's my attempt 
to define covenant in the sense I'll be addressing in this series 
of messages is a relational arrangement initiated by God's sovereign 
dispensing of his kindness, goodness, and wisdom toward man. In other 
words, divine covenants start with God, and they come to man. In the language of our confession, 
it's the language of condescension, God comes down, the creator is 
going to bridge the gap between himself and his creatures. And 
the way he does that is this relational arrangement that the 
Bible calls covenant. They come from God, they come 
to us. So in that sense, they are not 
contracts or packs between two equals. In the sense that I'm 
using covenant and covenant theology, there are no negotiations between 
God and man. Some of you have probably signed 
covenants between you and another man or woman. You've signed something, 
and it has covenantal language, and it puts you in a bond or 
a relationship with that person, and there are stipulations maybe 
on both sides. But in order to get to the point 
where you actually sign the covenant, you sign the paperwork, There 
were negotiations. There's give and take. There 
is, hey, we'll provide this. And you say, well, could you 
provide this? And the other party gives and takes. And then you 
guys go away and fight on the email or tweet against each other 
or however that goes to try to convince the person, we need 
to change the elements of the covenant. That's not the way 
the Bible presents God as enacting and delivering covenants to man. 
So that's the basic definition. a relational arrangement initiated 
by God's sovereign dispensing of his kindness, goodness, and 
wisdom toward man." Now, what is the specific concerns or specific 
concern of divine covenants? And this is where I borrow from 
a writer, a book that is on the bibliography. The writer's name 
is Nehemiah Cox. Some, maybe most, maybe all of 
you have heard of Nehemiah Cox before. He's probably the senior 
editor of the 1689 Confession, which was first published in 
1677. He wasn't a signatory at the 
assembly of the particular Baptist or Calvinistic Baptist or Reformed 
Baptist churches in the 17th century, because he died before 
they had that big meeting where all those pastors were, and they 
all signed their name on it. 12 years before, he was at least 
a co-editor and probably the senior editor of our Confession 
of Faith. And if you're going to understand 
chapter 7, which I think your Sunday school class, the adult 
Sunday school class, is that chapter 7 in the Confession. 
If you're going to understand chapter 7, you need to understand 
Nehemiah Cox on the covenants between God and man. Here's what 
he says about the specific concern of divine covenants. He says, 
divine covenants are concerned with the benefits God will bestow 
on man, the communion man will have with God, and the ways and 
means by which this will be enjoyed by man. So he's got three aspects 
of the specific concern of divine covenants. They're concerned 
with benefits that God will bestow, the type of communion that man 
may have, and the means to obtain these things. That's a broad 
enough, I think, definition and particular specific concern of 
divine covenants that's helpful. At least it's helpful for me. 
And since I'm the speaker, it doesn't matter if it's not helpful 
for you. But I hope it is. It's helpful. The more you know 
the Bible and might have studied covenant theology and sat under 
Pastor Butler's preaching, you're probably putting two and two 
together and applying those kind of concepts to various covenants 
that you know of in the Bible. By the way, I was going to address 
the covenant of redemption, but Pastor Butler preached on it 
last Sunday, so I can't do that. That was my best lecture. by 
far. So I said I had three sub points 
to this answer. What is a divine covenant? The 
third is further delineations upon the divine covenants. A 
divine human covenant, I'm calling this a divine human covenant 
because it comes from God and comes to man, is a bond between 
God and man sovereignly conceived and sovereignly bestowed by God 
for man's benefits. They come from God, they're imposed 
upon man, they're designed in some way to benefit man, and 
they contain ways and means to obtain those desired or designated 
benefits. Let me illustrate that and actually 
open the Bible and read Holy Scripture to try to illustrate 
that. I don't know if you remember 
where that came from, but John Gershner, who was a scholar of 
Jonathan Edwards, and R.C. Sproul's mentor, came to our 
seminary in the 1980s. And he never opened his Bible. He even preached a sermon once 
without opening his Bible. You know how R.C. Sproul talks like this? Well, 
John Kirshner talked like this as well. And he never opened 
a Bible. He had his Bible, a Q&A session. He was hard of hearing. Back 
then, we didn't have cordless things. We had a mic up there 
with a cord. And so we wanted him to answer 
the questions in the mic so we could record them. And because 
he was hard of hearing, he'd often walk down the aisle and 
say, what did you say? Well, he did with this one question. 
Pissed the cord off. So the question was this. Dr. 
Gersher, you've been here for three days, and you haven't opened 
your Bible. And he comes back to the microphone. The question 
is? Dr. Gerstner's been here for three 
days. He hasn't opened his Bible. How 
do you answer the question? He said, young man, I did my 
exegesis 40 years ago. We're doing theology. Well, in 
one sense, there's not a lot of exegesis in my presentation 
as well. It assumes a lot of exegesis, 
OK? So let's look at some examples 
of divine covenants that I think illustrate, at least begin to 
illustrate what I'm trying to get at. Two Old Testament examples, 
Exodus chapter 19, the old or Mosaic covenant, called the Mosaic covenant by 
men, called the old covenant by God in his word. But Exodus 
chapter 19, four through six, If you yourselves have seen what 
I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagle's wings and 
brought you to myself, now then, if you will indeed obey my voice 
and keep my covenant, this is God's covenant imposed upon the 
ancient nation of Israel, then you will be my possession among 
all the peoples for all the earth is mine. You see that if, then, 
there are benefits to be bestowed, here's the means whereby you 
can gain those benefits. Obey. You shall be to me a kingdom 
of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you 
shall speak to the sons of Israel. In Exodus 24, 1 through 8, we 
see the formal inauguration of this covenant enacted through 
the shedding of blood. I'm not going to read that passage 
I did in my exegesis many years ago. 24, 1 through 8 is an interesting 
passage because it shows the actual formal inauguration of 
the covenant through the shedding of blood. So here you have the 
establishment of it through the shedding of blood. But these 
two texts, Exodus 19, 4 through 6, Exodus 24, 1 through 8, illustrate 
that the Mosaic or old covenant was sovereignly imposed by God 
upon ancient Israel. It's not like they sat there 
saying, hey, would you make us a peculiar people? Would you 
make us a special nation? Would you come into covenant 
with us? And here's the deal. Here's the stipulations. Here 
are the conditions that we have for you. It's the other way around. 
God sovereignly imposed this upon them. It had conditions 
that had to be met in order to attain its promises. which Nehemiah 
Cox was hinting at in his definition. Elsewhere, we are told that this 
covenant could be and actually was violated or broken, Jeremiah 
31, 32, the covenant which they broke, and elsewhere in the Old 
Testament. So we see that the old covenant 
as well, Exodus 24, I didn't read the passage, it was formally 
established through the shedding of blood. which is just kind 
of like a side note, but very interesting to consider, in light 
of the new covenant formally inaugurated through the shedding 
of blood in an exodus. I'm getting off into other things. 
Let's look at the second Old Testament illustration, 2 Samuel 
chapter 7. 2 Samuel chapter 7. This is the passage that deals 
with what we call the Davidic covenant. And there's something 
interesting about this in 2 Samuel chapter 7, verses 12 through 
16. Well, there are many things interesting 
about this. But one thing that's fascinating 
when you do a study on covenant theology is you will not find 
the word covenant in 2 Samuel 7, 12 through 16. But if you 
ask most Bible scholars and hopefully Bible students and many here, 
hey, where's the Davidic covenant first revealed in the Bible? 
They're going to say 2 Samuel chapter 7. Have you ever heard 
somebody say, there can't be a covenant there, the word's 
not there. The word is not there. We're 
not going to read it there. However, there are at least two 
other places, 2 Samuel 23.5, which comes chronologically, 
historically, after 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 89, where the writer, 
David, in the psalm, looking back to this historical point, 
2 Samuel 7, in fact, calls this a covenant. So it's like, God, 
through the human author David, is commenting after the fact 
on his previous revelation to David. He didn't use the word 
covenant in 2 Samuel 7, but it is defined as or called a covenant 
later by a later biblical writer, who happens to be in this case. 
David, so here's a principle of hermeneutics that I'm sure 
Pastor Butler's taught you, maybe not in these words, but ladder 
revelation often makes explicit what was only implicit in antecedent 
or prior revelation. The Bible is organically related, 
okay? It's progressive. It goes from 
seed to full flower. You might see something coming 
up out of the ground. You know what it is because you 
planted it. But a neighbor comes by and sees it coming up and 
they don't know what that is. They just say it could be a weed 
for all they know. You know that it's an acorn tree 
or it's a peach. You guys don't have peach trees 
up here. And they don't have peach trees in Georgia either. 
Peach trees are in California. Are there some here? They probably have heaters and 
stuff like that. No, they do that. Anyway, you 
might know what it is because you planted it, okay? But then 
the neighbor comes and doesn't know. But as the tree grows, 
as it matures, as it develops, as it finally bears its fruit, 
things become obvious and clear. But until all of that happens, 
the essence of the thing is there, okay? But the form takes a while 
to grow and develop and be able to be easily discerned by the 
human eye. Same thing with the Bible and 
covenant theology. And we see it here. Anyway, let 
me get to the text. 2 Samuel 7, 12 through 16. When your days are complete, 
God to David, and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise 
up your descendant I have the New American Standard, 
and it has a footnote here next to descendant. Your seed. Now, that should trigger something, 
okay? When the concept of descendant 
or seed, and here we have a male seed, a royal male seed. is going to be, something's going 
to happen with this royal male seed through the line of David 
in the future, that should not only cause us to ask the question, 
oh, who's that? What's he talking about? But 
we need to start connecting dots. The concept of a descendant, 
a male descendant, a seed, doesn't start here. It's got tap roots 
that go back a lot farther. And it goes farther back than 
Abraham as well. Where does it go back to? Genesis, 
yeah, which we'll get to at some point. Who will come forth from you 
and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my 
name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and 
he will be a son to me when he commits iniquity. Look at this 
condition. Iniquity. What is iniquity? Sin. 
Sin is the transgression of the law. So law keeping is a condition 
not only of the Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant, but here of 
the Davidic Covenant as well. Somebody's got to keep the law. 
When he commits iniquity, I'll correct him with the rod of men 
and the strokes of the sons of men. But my loving kindness shall 
not depart from him as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed 
from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall 
endure before me forever, your throne shall be established forever." 
Now, the concept of a seed, a male descendant, ultimately of the 
woman, promised in Genesis 3.15, goes through Abraham, goes through 
the Mosaic world, and then here it is picked up by the Davidic 
covenant. Something else is connected here, 
a house for my name. The church is the house of God. It's the temple of the living 
God. So a temple builder is going 
to come. A house of God builder is going to come, as God promises 
here. But as we know, it wasn't fulfilled 
in any of David's immediate sons. They all sinned. God didn't bless him with an 
eternal throne, at least Solomon or any other immediate descendants 
there. But the New Testament picks that 
up, this is beyond the scope of our study, and says, you want 
to know who David's son is? Great David's greater son, as 
the hymn says, it is the Messiah. And at his exaltation upon the 
resurrection and ascension, that's when he sat down, he assumed 
the posture of David's royal son in fulfillment of many things 
in the Old Testament, but one of them was this. So this text 
in 2 Samuel illustrates that the covenant with David was sovereignly 
imposed by God. It had conditions to be met in 
order to enjoy its benefits, similar to the Old Covenant. 
The conditions to be met in the Mosaic or Old Covenant and the 
Davidic covenant were based on the law of God, and they were 
non-negotiable. So that's our two Old Testament 
illustrations of this definition of a covenant. And then turn 
to one New Testament example in Hebrews chapter 10, verses 
15 to 22. Hebrews chapter 10, verses 15 through 22. And the 
Holy Spirit also testifies to us For after saying, this is the 
covenant that I'll make with them after those days, says the 
Lord, I will put my laws upon their heart. And on their mind, 
I will write them." Now, my translation of the Bible has capital letters 
for verse 16. The reason is that's a quotation 
of the Old Testament here. It happens to be a reference 
to Jeremiah chapter 31. He then says, and their sins 
and their lawless deeds, I will remember no more. Now there now, 
now where there is forgiveness of these things, lawless deeds, 
there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, 
since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of 
Jesus, by a new and living way which he inaugurated for us through 
the veil that is his flesh. And since we have a great priest 
over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart 
and full assurance of faith. having our hearts already sprinkled 
clean from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water. This is obviously a reference 
to the New Covenant, called so by the New Testament, that was 
promised in Jeremiah chapter 31, verses 31 through 34. I'm 
sure you're familiar with that. We'll look at it a little later 
today. In Jeremiah 31, 32, we are told that this covenant is 
not like the covenant which Israel broke. The covenant which Israel 
broke was the old, or Mosaic, covenant. We read about it a 
little in Exodus chapter 19. That covenant was breakable. It was violable. It could be violated. In this 
new covenant, the law of God is written on the hearts of all 
in the covenant. You can see that in verse 16 
of Hebrews 10, this is the covenant that I will make with them after 
those days. Here is this sovereignly designed 
relationship with man that God is imposing upon man, this covenant 
I'll make with them after those days, says the Lord. Here it 
is. I will put my laws upon their heart. I will do something. God is going to sovereignly do 
something in connection with this covenant. Obedience to the 
law is not a condition. for either entrance into this 
covenant or remaining in this covenant. It's very important 
for us to see that. Obedience to the law in this 
covenant is actually a blessing of the covenant, not a condition. We'll see this a little later. 
In this new covenant, there is forgiveness of sins for all in 
the covenant, verses 17 and 18. Their sins and their lawless 
deeds I'll remember no more. What sinners need is provided 
for in this covenant, and it's not due to their obedience to 
God's law. This is God who says, I'm enacting 
a relationship with men. I am doing this. This is a work 
of God. The blessings of the new covenant 
are attained through faith, and not works. Therefore, brethren, 
since we have confidence to enter the holy place by a new living 
way, look at verse 22. Let us draw near with a sincere 
heart in full assurance of faith. We have faith, so we're connected 
to this covenant through faith, having our hearts already sprinkled 
clean from an evil conscience and our bodies already washed 
pure with water. The blessings of the new covenant 
are attained through faith, not obedience, not works. In other 
words, faith is the condition, I put the quotes over that, of 
this covenant. It is the means through which 
one enters the covenant, and it is the means through which 
one enjoys all the benefits of this covenant. And as we learn 
elsewhere in the Bible, for instance, Ephesians 2.8, faith itself is 
also the gift of God. So the new covenant provides 
all that it requires. Whatever those benefits are, 
whatever those blessings are to be had by members of the New 
Covenant, the New Covenant itself, the arrangement of relationship 
that's imposed from heaven to earth by God to us, all those 
benefits come freely and sovereignly and are a part of the covenant 
itself. The benefits aren't ours if we 
meet the conditions Its blessings are not conditioned 
on what we do in relation to God's law, but wholly upon what 
Christ did, and receiving them through faith apart from work. 
So a divine human covenant is a bond between God and man, sovereignly 
conceived and bestowed by God for man's benefits, with ways 
and means established by God to obtain the designated benefits. That is the first question answered. The second question is this. What is the study of the divine 
covenants normally called? What is the study of the divine 
covenants normally called? If you go in your pastor's study 
and you walk right to the back, in the back little inner sanctum, 
there's some books there. And on the right, the second 
row, I think, had a lot of good stuff. Well, it starts on the 
top row in second. All the stuff on covenant theology, 
that's what the, my, yeah, my book's on the top row. I noticed 
the order, you got John Owen, then he has Gerardus Vos, then 
he has me trying to explain those guys. But I told him, I said, 
look, my dissertation has a wonderful cover. It does. Have you seen the cover? It's 
a nice cover. You don't have a copy of it? Oh, I would have 
brought you one. You can go on the internet and 
see the cover. It's a nice cover. You can get a copy of it. Anyway, the study of the divine 
covenants is normally called covenant theology. But why is 
it called covenant theology? Covenant theology is an attempt 
to put the pieces of the Bible together around the concept of 
covenant due to the Bible's overarching structure. Now, I was trained 
in dispensational theology. I was told that covenant theology 
is a system of doctrine imposed over the Bible so that you read 
the Bible through the grid of this system of doctrine, presupposed, 
not proved exegetically, and then put over the Bible, and 
then you read it through there. That's what I was told. Now, 
I think it'd be worthy, if it's not worthy of our time, sorry, 
I made a bad judgment call. We're going to use our time this 
way. to kind of justify this whole notion of covenant theology, 
taking the concept of covenant and trying to see it throughout 
redemptive history and the progress of revelation. How can we justify 
it? Can we justify that? I think 
we can for a few reasons. Let me just say this. If you 
notice, the Bible is thick, and there's an Old Testament And 
there's a New Testament, right? The fact that our Bibles has 
two testaments, I think, in part, justifies covenant theology. The Old Testament basically corresponds 
with the covenant God made with ancient Israel at Sinai. We're going to look at that in 
a minute. The New Testament corresponds with a covenant that was inaugurated 
by the shedding of Christ's blood, the new or eternal covenant, 
as Paul or whoever wrote Hebrews says in Hebrews 13.20, borrowing 
from Isaiah, the eternal covenant. So the Old Testament is basically 
connected to the Old Covenant. The New Testament is connected 
to the New Covenant. So I want to explore that a little, 
and I think it'll help you, hopefully it'll help you put together the 
Bible, justify covenant theology, and see the process of revelation, 
which I'll explain in a moment. So the Old Testament is vitally 
connected to the Old or Mosaic Covenant. It's important to see 
this, and it's important to think through this. It's important 
also to realize that the written Word of God before the coming 
of Christ is connected to Israel and the covenant God made with 
them at Sinai. So God acts, God reveals himself, 
God purposes to enter into covenant with Israel. All that happens 
before we can read about it in the Pentateuch, the five books 
of Moses. Except for Job and possibly a 
psalm or two, there was no written word of God. prior to Moses writing 
the Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Pentateuch, five book scroll. There was revelation. God revealed 
himself prior to the writing of the Pentateuch. He revealed 
himself in creation. He revealed himself in special 
revelations to particular individuals, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, and 
then Moses and others. But there was no inscripturated 
revelation. There was no Bible or the bud 
of the Bible starting to form. Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy 
for Old Covenant Israel. From all we know, prior to Moses' 
death, Before Joshua, the Lord saves. The Hebrew name, the Greek 
is Jesus. Before Joshua actually takes 
the people into the promised land, Moses dies. But Moses finishes writing the 
Pentateuch. The Pentateuch was written for 
the old covenant people of God. It was written to connect them 
with God's creation and God's plan of redemption. And it gave 
them particular laws for them in the promised land. So it was 
for them in that sense. The nation of Israel was chosen 
by God to bring the Messiah into the world. And its worship and 
its ordinances were types and shadows of the substance which 
is found in Christ alone. So the written word of God starts 
with Israel as God's old covenant nation. Okay, so that's the Pentateuch. 
Now, the subsequent books of the Old Testament all imply, 
all presuppose, the theology that's in Genesis through Deuteronomy. For instance, when you read the 
prophets, what do they do? They do at least two things. 
They scold the old covenant people of God. And why? Because they 
violated the covenant. What covenant did they violate? 
The old or Mosaic covenant. How did the prophets know they 
violated the old or Mosaic covenants? Because the stipulations for 
it were written down by God's messenger Moses. And they had 
them, and they read them. And the prophets were God's prosecuting 
attorney. the whole thing depending upon 
God's covenant with Israel. So even the prophetic books, 
in one sense, in a real sense, are connected to the Old Covenant. 
The whole Old Testament is connected to the Old Covenant. The Old 
Testament, then, is a covenantal document for God's covenant people. So it doesn't, to me, it doesn't 
take a rocket science to say, oh, then covenant theology seems 
to be based on the way God has actually revealed himself in his word. And here's something 
else that's happening. You know, if you read Genesis, 
for instance, you've got the creation. In the beginning, God 
created the heavens and the earth. Now, I don't think I ever thought 
this way, okay? But I didn't used to think rightly 
about that. Does anyone think Moses was sitting 
there going, wow, day one. And then he saw day two, and 
day six, wow, Adam, a man, this is great. And he's writing, he's 
recounting the facts of creation as God speaking them into existence. That's not what happened, okay? 
What happened was the revelation of God in creation happens first. And then subsequent to God's 
act on the earth, in this case, creation, he uses penmen, he 
uses writers to record the fact and to draw out theological implications 
of God's, in this case, creative acts on the earth. But the same 
goes for redemption as well. The exodus from Egyptian bondage 
occurred prior to Moses writing about it. God acts, then God 
interprets his acts through the writers of scripture. God acts 
in inaugurating this old covenant, and then God explains it and 
records it through the writing of Moses. And the pattern is 
all throughout the Old Testament. The redemptive historical acts 
of God occur first, and then God explains and interprets and 
applies the redemptive historical acts of God enacted on the earth 
in space and time. He then applies them. He interprets 
them. He tells us what it means through 
the writing of scripture. So the Old Testament is a covenantal 
document connected to the covenant people of God. And though the new covenant in 
Christ's blood was only promised in the Old Testament, not fully 
and formally realized until Christ shed his blood, the Old Covenant, 
the Old Testament itself, ends with a lot of wrong things. There's 
a lot wrong. When you read the Old Testament, 
you should end going, where's the conclusion? This is open-ended. This is just sitting there. There's 
promises. There's hope. There's strands 
of truth that the prophets talked about that goes way back to the, 
actually, to Genesis 3.15 that haven't been brought to their 
fruition. The peach tree stopped in mid-season. We need a completion. We need 
the harvest. Well, that's what the New Testament 
is. The New Testament is that to which the Old Testament looked 
to, centered around Christ. But just like the Old Testament 
has foundational documents, the Pentateuch, the New Testament 
has foundational documents as well. If the Old Testament's 
foundational documents, the Pentateuch, record for us God's acts of creation 
and the major acts of redemption in the New Testament. By the 
way, the redemption in the Old Testament is the exodus from 
Egyptian bondage. That's like the big act of God 
where his mighty hand of power goes down. His people are in 
bondage in a foreign land. He takes them out of that place. 
He slaughters their enemies. He transfers them to another 
place in which they have relative peace and security by a mediator, 
Moses first and then Joshua. But the New Testament has the 
same kind of a process. We have great redemptive 
historical acts of God on the earth. And what is the greatest 
one ever? It's the incarnation and the sufferings and glory 
of Christ. So Christ comes on the scene. John the Baptist points 
to him, the disciples are lost and they get saved, or however 
that goes. Maybe some of them who were believing 
in the Messiah. By the way, there were people at the time of Jesus 
that were hoping for and anticipating the Messiah when he came on the 
scene. What's his name? Simeon says, now I can go, and 
now I can die. I've seen the Lord's salvation. 
How did he know that he saw the Lord's salvation? Why was he 
even looking for the Lord's salvation? The Old Testament pointed forward 
to somebody that was going to come and take the people out 
of bondage again, a second exodus, a greater exodus, that the prophets 
actually talked about. But that happens first. Jesus comes. The second person 
of the eternal Godhead becomes one of us. He assumes human nature, 
body and soul. He obeys and suffers and in the 
consummation of his obedience and suffering on the cross, he 
dies. He rises from the dead, entering 
into glory. He was glorified at the resurrection 
and then assumes the posture of enthronement at the right 
hand of the Father, fulfilling the Davidic promise, sitting 
on the throne of David's kingdom and ruling forever and forever. That happens first. Then what 
happens? Then the human authors of Scripture record this for 
us. So like the Pentateuch is the foundational documents recording 
the great creational and redemptive acts of God on the earth that 
were done first and then written about, so the Gospels functioned 
that way in the New Testament. The foundational records of the 
great redemptive historical and creative slash redemptive historical 
Acts of God in Christ. Then you have like the Book of 
Acts. The Book of Acts is a record of the continued work of Christ 
when he went into heaven. In Acts chapter 1, 1 and 2, Luke 
wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. And he tells his audience 
that the Gospel of Luke was written by me about what Jesus began 
to do and teach. The implication is this second 
volume Luke chapter, Luke volume 2, Acts, it continues the story, 
Luke, the gospel, what Jesus began to do and teach, the Book 
of Acts, what Jesus is continually doing and teaching from heaven 
as the exalted mediator by the ministry of the Holy Spirit through 
primarily the apostles themselves. So the Book of Acts is not the 
Acts of the apostles, It's not the Acts of, if it was, it'd 
be the Acts of Peter and Paul because those are the major figures 
as far as the Apostles go, but I don't think it is. I don't 
even think it's the Acts of the Holy Spirit. If it had a title, I 
think it'd be something like this, the Acts of the Risen Lord 
Jesus, okay, through the designated ministers that he appointed while 
he was on the earth through the Apostles. But there you have 
the record of what Jesus continued to do after the events recorded 
for us in the Gospels. And then what are the epistles? 
The epistles are similar, in one sense, to the prophets. The 
apostles of Christ are drawing out theological and practical 
implications of the redemptive, historical, covenantal acts of 
God on the earth through Christ. The apostles are drawing out 
the implications, theological and practical, for the church 
of the new covenant. So the Old and New Testaments 
are very similar. The Old Testament? vitally connected 
to the Old Covenant. The New Testament, vitally connected 
to the New Covenant. The Old Testament, a covenantal 
document for the covenantal people of God. The New Testament, a 
covenantal document for the covenantal people of God. How do we justify covenant theology? The Bible itself is covenantally 
structured. The Old Testament revolving around 
the Old Covenant. The New Testament revolving around excuse me, the new covenant. And then the book of Revelation 
points to whatever your pastor says it points to. So covenants, only after I leave though, so 
covenants form the framework, okay, the structure around which 
God reveals his plan of salvation in Christ. I think that's obvious. The documents of the Old Testament 
are vitally connected to the Old Covenant. The documents of 
the New Testament are vitally connected to the New Covenant. 
The unfolding of God's revelation to us is consummated in Christ. The unfolding of the peach tree 
is consummated in mature peaches that we eat and enjoy. The consummation 
of biblical revelation is is consummated in Christ, Hebrews 
1, 1 through 3, and many other places in the New Testament and 
the Old Testament as well. But God spoke to us at various 
times in various ways, but now. There's a consummate spokesman 
for God. Is it disconnected to everything 
that was spoken before? No, it's that which was revealed 
before, that which it was pointing to. Matter of fact, reading the 
book of Acts, there's this motif going on in the book of Acts, 
where Peter, for instance, looks at something happening. People 
are arguing about what's going on. And he says, hey, this, what 
we're now experiencing, is that. What the prophets said would 
happen when the servant of the Lord, the specially anointed 
servant of the Lord, Messiah, would come on the earth. This 
is that. That motif is all over the Book 
of Acts. It's all over the Gospels, the 
Gospel of Matthew. You preach through the Gospel 
of Matthew. It's in the Gospel of Matthew, too. You know, if 
you're in the first century and this guy's claiming to be the 
Messiah, And you have people that are going to be asking a 
lot of questions over and over and over. The apostles go, hold 
on, this isn't like plan B. Plan A, Israel didn't work. Plan 
B, we're going to have the church. This is what has always been 
spoken of from the foundation of the world. This is the seed, 
the descendant of the woman that was going to be a blessing to 
the nations, as God revealed to Abraham. who would be David's 
son sitting on a throne building a house for God. This is him. 
This is that which was spoken of by God through the prophets 
already. This is just the fulfillment. 
So the Bible's not only covenantally structured. It is Christocentric. Or there's a word. I might have 
made it up. I don't know. Christotelic. Christo-climactic, okay? The Old Testament is leaning 
in a direction, okay? Not just forward, but Christward. And the New Testament, it is 
that, it's the black and white of the Old Testament shadows 
and types in full living color. So it's not only covenantally 
structured, it's Christocentric. So if we're gonna understand 
the Bible, we have to understand it covenantally and Christocentrically, 
or else we're gonna lose the forest for the trees. The Bible's 
not a manual on which color shoes to wear. Pastor, would you pray 
for me? Why? I want to know the Lord's 
will on shoes. I think the Lord wants you to 
buy warm shoes up here. You can be foolish and make sure nobody wears them. 
Somebody's got them. I saw socks on some... Oh, that was at your 
house this morning. It's probably my own socks. The Bible is not 
principally a book on how-tos Monday through Saturday. It's 
a book that seeks to gain glory for God. And how is God gaining 
glory for himself? Through what he does in the skull-crushing 
seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus Christ, in bringing many sons 
to glory. while destroying all their enemies. 
That's what I think the Bible's ultimately about. God's going 
to be famous. He is. But because of sin, we 
don't acknowledge it. But he's going to be acknowledged 
as the all-glorious potentate, the eternal one, the one worthy 
of praise. Even though the devil and his 
cronies have infected the souls of men who are in the image of 
God, and tinkered with the earth, God is going to overcome that 
through the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. So if we're going 
to understand the Bible, we've got to understand it covenantally 
and Christocentrically. And if biblical revelation is 
consummated in Christ and formulated around covenants, then it is 
about Christ and must be interpreted in light of Christ and the covenants. 
Listen to what Nehemiah Cox says. So in all our search after the 
mind of God and the holy scriptures, we are to manage our inquiries 
with reference to Christ. Well, if it's ultimately about 
God getting glory through what he does through Christ, then 
that has to filter all of our interpretation, all of our study 
of Scripture. Then he adds these very important 
words, therefore, the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy 
Spirit speaking to us in the New. John Owens put it this way, the 
only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scriptures is the Holy 
Spirit in the Holy Scriptures. If God commenting on God's own 
word. God, in the Bible, often interprets 
his own word for us. Probably the best illustration 
of that is the various ways that the New Testament uses the old. But by the way, authors of scripture 
interpreting and applying previous inscripturated revelation, that 
doesn't wait until the New Testament. Just like I said, the prophets, 
what do they do? They assume the revelation that 
God gave through Moses and the Pentateuch, and they interpret 
and apply it to the given situation they're writing to. So it's God, 
through the prophets, interpreting and applying his own word. When 
God, through the prophets or the writers of the New Testament, 
interprets and applies his own word, it's infallible interpretation, 
okay? It's what God intended, ultimately, 
all along. And we can't fight with that. 
So listen what Nehemiah Cox continues to say. Therefore, the best interpreter 
of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the 
new. There we have the clearest light of the knowledge of the 
glory of God shining on us in the face of Jesus Christ by unveiling 
those counsels of love and grace that were hidden from former 
ages and generations. Unquote. The Old Testament points 
to and leans toward Christ with its promises and types of him 
who has to come. The New Testament presents Christ 
in his sufferings and glory. It both interprets the Old Testament 
in light of his sufferings and glory, and the New Testament 
applies the implications of his sufferings and glory to the new 
covenant church and to the future. The Old Testament contains the 
bud of redemption, the new, the full flower. The old is but a 
shadow. The new is its substance. In 
the Old Testament, Christ is revealed, though clothed in promises 
and types. In the new, that which was promised 
and typified is unveiled. And all of this is vitally connected 
to covenants imposed upon man by God. So if we're going to 
understand the Bible, we had better understand Christology 
and covenants together. So I'm almost finished. All this 
to say that the Bible is a covenantally structured book centering itself 
on the Lord of glory, the Lord Jesus Christ, in his sufferings 
and glory. I got a few more minutes. Sufferings 
and glory. Some of you older brothers, Steve, 
you ever heard of those concepts before? Speak up. I said, have you ever heard of 
those concepts before? Yes. Sufferings and glory. Sufferings and glory. I think 
those two concepts are put together at least three times in the New 
Testament. Listen to 1 Peter 1 10, as to 
this salvation, the prophets, the salvation that the first 
century Christians were experiencing, as to this salvation, the prophets 
who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, these prophets 
prophesying the prophets, the writing prophets of the Old Testament. 
They made careful search and inquiries, seeking to know what 
person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating, 
notice, the spirit of Christ. Here is the mediator between 
God and men functioning prior to the incarnation and bringing, 
as a prophet, speaking on behalf of God through his spirit through 
the prophets. The mediation of Christ predates 
the incarnation of Christ. That's for another sermon, or 
that's for your sermons. Seeking to know what person or 
time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as he predicted 
the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. Sufferings 
and glories, as the Spirit of Christ predicted through the 
prophets of Christ prior to his incarnation, the prophets of 
the Old Testament, the sufferings and the glory of Christ. Sufferings 
and glory. It's not just a New Testament 
concept. Sufferings and glory has its roots in the Old Testament. But it's not fully explained 
what that looks like and means until the New Testament. Remember, 
the Old Testament's kind of in black and white, a little fuzzy. It's not real clear at times. 
There's mysterious stuff there that needs further explanation. The New Testament says, I'm going 
to show you what all that meant. Christ comes on the scene. The 
writers of the New Testament explain the redemptive historical 
acts of God. They record the facts of them, 
the Gospels, and they explain the theological and practical 
and eschatological implications in the subsequent rest of the 
New Testament. So what I'm trying to do is I'm 
trying to say this. The clearest light we have on the covenant 
theology and Christology in the Bible is the New Testament. So in the next session and tomorrow, 
we're going to study covenant theology backwards, historically. We're going to 
go from the New Testament all the way back to the Eternal Councils. 
Well, we have to stop there because your pastor already rained on 
my parade. We're going to go from the New Covenant and start 
asking some questions. What is the new covenant? Why 
was it necessary? That's when we'll go backwards. 
Why was the new covenant necessary? We'll go backwards all the way 
through the covenants in the Old Testament, not all of them, 
and end up at the covenant of creation or works and other things. 
So if we're going to understand 
the Bible correctly, we have to understand it Christologically 
or Christocentrically and covenantally. In order to do this, I will go 
to the New Testament first, where Christ and the covenant theology 
of the Bible are explained to us most clearly. So our study 
of covenant theology work backwards, historically speaking, but theologically 
and canonically, we will work from the standpoint of a completed 
canon, a full and finished theological revelation from God, allowing 
the later writers to shed light on the former. We're going to 
allow God, through the penman of Scripture, over here in the 
New Testament, to help us understand what God, through the penman 
of the Old Testament, meant. That's the safest place to start. in terms of a big study like 
this. What does God say about the Old Covenant? What does God 
say about the New Covenant? What does God say about Abraham? 
What does God say about Adam? Well, you can start at Genesis 
if you want, but we don't have that kind of time, okay? We're 
gonna start over here and see what the mature revelation of 
the New Testament says, reflecting back on the earlier revelation. 
So we have divine light on divine light to help us try to put these 
things together. So this will give us the divine 
interpretation of divine revelation, in our case, Christological covenant 
theology. That's it. So, that's not it. Covenant theology, then, is man's 
attempt to put the Christologically and covenantally structured revelation 
of God and his written word together in a logical, somewhat comprehensive 
fashion, showing the organic relation of all the parts of 
the Bible Just like the roots are connected to the fruit in 
the tree illustration, the organic relations of all the parts of 
the Bible, the progress of revelation, and its Christocentric, Christoclimactic 
consummation, or the nature of its consummation in Christ, as 
revealed to us in the New Testament. That's what covenant theology 
is, and that's my justification for it. Let's eat donuts and 
drink coffee.