← Back to sermon library

Chapters 7 to 20 deal with the 
covenant. So the covenant here is defined 
in Chapter 7. That sets the stage for the introduction 
of the covenant servant in Chapter 8, the covenantal setting in 
Chapter 9, and then the blessings associated with God's covenant 
following there, Chapters 10 and following. So I'll just read 
Chapter 7. And again, we're going to just do a survey of this particular 
chapter. So beginning in chapter 7 at 
paragraph 1, the distance between God and the creature is so great 
that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as 
their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward 
of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, 
which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. Moreover, 
man, having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, 
it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offers 
unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of 
them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give 
unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, 
to make them willing and able to believe. This covenant is 
revealed in the Gospel, first of all to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterward by father's 
steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the 
New Testament. And it is founded in that eternal 
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 saved did obtain life and a blessed immortality, 
man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. Well, 
this is a packed chapter, to be sure, as it explains this 
whole idea of covenant. The definition of covenant at 
its most basic level is an agreement between two or more persons. 
Now, certainly in the history of theology, that basic definition 
has been added to and amplified. Typically, in definitions concerning 
covenant, you'll find things like solemn promise. Robertson connects these promises 
always with the shedding of blood. oath-bound promise, the idea 
that it's not just an agreement, but there is this oath-bound 
promise founded on the very nature and being of God. As well, there 
are sanctions threatened for disobedience, there are promises 
made with reference to obedience, and then there's blessings that 
are indicated. for those things that God promises 
to confer. Now, certainly there are covenants 
man-to-man, but when we come to chapter 7, and when we typically 
treat covenant theology, we're dealing with God's covenant with 
man. Now, Jim Renahan says that we 
believe that the structure of Scripture is properly defined 
by what has been designated as covenant theology. To grasp this 
fact is to grasp the central architecture of the entire Bible. In other words, it is the means 
or it is the framework for all of God's dealings with man. It 
is the foundation, it is the superstructure, and then we see 
it fleshed out in the movement of redemptive history in terms 
of the work of Jesus Christ. Nehemiah Cox says, the general 
notion of any covenant of God with men considered on the part 
of God or as proposed by Him may be conceived of as a declaration 
of His sovereign pleasure concerning the benefits He will bestow on 
them, the communion they will have with them, and the way and 
means by which this will be enjoyed by them. Now, as we look at this 
particular chapter, I think it is typical for persons to just 
sort of put covenant theology into the category of theory or 
abstract theology or things that are confined to, you know, pastors 
and seminary students and people that just like to read Christian 
books. But, it's intensely practical. If you noted what we sang in 
582, that hymn by Edward Mote, I think that this is a wonderful 
practical implication with reference to covenant theology. He says, 
His oath, His covenant, His blood support me in the whelming flood. when all around my soul gives 
way, he then is all my hope and stay. On Christ the solid rock 
I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. So the fact that 
God has covenanted to bless his people is good news for his people 
in the ebb and flow of their Christian lives. In fact, in 
many places in our confession of faith, it does conspicuously 
attach practical Christianity to God's covenant. So it's not 
just theory, it's not just an abstraction, but rather there's 
a world of practical help afforded by an understanding of covenant 
theology. So as we move through the chapter, 
we're going to spend the most of the time on paragraph 3, but 
it is important to at least see the structure. In the first place, 
paragraph 1 deals with the necessity of God's covenant. the necessity 
of God's covenant. And the framers highlight the 
creator-creature distinction. The distance between God and 
the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures 
do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could 
never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary 
condescension which he has been pleased to express by way of 
covenant. So the separation, or rather the distinction, between 
the creator and the creature is great. The creature owes obedience 
unto God, but in order for the creature to actually achieve 
blessing from God, it comes by way of God's covenant with him. 
So it's not the case that Adam was created in a covenant, but 
Adam was created for covenant, and then we see that in Genesis 
chapter 2, which we'll look at in more detail later on. So man 
by nature, man as man, having come from the hand of God, as 
a creature before God, owes obedience to God. But if man, because of 
his status before the Holy Lord of Israel, if man is going to 
achieve any degree of blessing or eternal life, it must come 
by way of God's voluntary condescension, which he has been pleased to 
express by way of covenant. The second paragraph deals with 
the essential characteristics of God's covenant. Notice, the 
first portion speaks to its subsequent necessity. Moreover, man having 
brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall." So because 
of the fall into sin, it necessitated or it demanded that if man would 
stand before God clothed in a righteousness, God must undertake. So God was 
pleased, pleased the Lord to make the covenant of grace. So 
it's the divine basis of God's covenant is seen conspicuously. It wasn't us who initiated this 
covenant. It wasn't us who asked for this 
covenant. It wasn't us who bartered with 
God for this. The divine initiative and the 
divine provision ought to be appreciated by the people of 
God when we discuss the covenant of grace. It's because of God. It's because of His grace, it's 
because of His mercy, that we stand in this covenantal relationship 
to Him. Notice the gracious nature of 
the covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners 
life by Jesus Christ. It's a beautiful statement, isn't 
it? How is it that we will stand in heaven, or before God in heaven? Because we have been given this 
salvation by Jesus Christ, which was freely offered unto us through 
the gospel and affected by the power of the Holy Spirit. You 
can see why it's called a covenant of grace. We'll look at the various 
covenants when we get to paragraph 3, but for now just sort of highlighting 
these essential characteristics or features of the covenant of 
grace. And then notice the specific elements involved in this. There 
is a condition. Notice, requiring of them faith 
in Him that they may be saved. Now, we talk a lot about this. 
I think at times it comes out from the pulpit, certainly in 
our Saturday mornings and certainly in our Sunday morning study of 
the Confession. We need to understand that faith 
is properly a condition of the covenant of grace, but we also 
must qualify that. If we say that faith is a condition 
of the covenant of grace, it can bring us into Arminianism 
or into Pelagianism. So if we say that faith is a 
condition of the covenant of grace and we don't give any further 
explanation, then the idea might be, well, it's my faith that 
initiates the salvation plan with God, or it's my response 
to the gospel that sort of gets the wheels rolling. It's my faith 
in the Lord Jesus that causes God to act on my behalf for benefit 
and for good. We need to make sure that we 
understand that, strictly speaking, faith is a condition of the covenant 
of grace, but we need to make sure that we qualify it, and 
that's what the confession goes on to do. They are not Arminian, 
and they're not Pelagian, and they're not somehow teaching, 
you know, what Billy Graham teaches in How to Be Born Again, the 
book on salvation, that our faith is the condition upon which we 
then are born again and enter into God's favor. That's not 
what they mean. That's not what Reformed theologians 
mean when they do speak of faith as a condition of the covenant. 
Again, strictly speaking, what's the means by which we come into 
saving contact with Jesus? It's faith. So that is a condition, 
but we need to qualify it and make sure that we don't fall 
into Arminianism or Pelagianism, somehow thinking we bring faith 
to the table and then that activates God and His good pleasure toward 
us. Now, I say all that to highlight 
that they indeed qualify this statement, requiring of them 
faith in Him that they may be saved. Again, the conditional 
nature is there. If you do not have faith, you 
are not saved. That is a condition, right? Everybody with me? But it's not 
a condition that man in himself meets. It's not a condition that 
man apart from God can generate. It's not a condition that man 
can produce. It rather is received by the 
grace of God. And that's what the last part 
of paragraph 2 indicates, and promising to give unto all those 
that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit to make 
them willing and able to believe. If somebody were to see, requiring 
of them faith in Him that they may be saved, and somehow concluded 
that the framers here were Arminian or Pelagian, all they'd need 
to do is read the rest of the statement. Where is it, or how 
does it come about that sinners do in fact believe? He promises 
or determines to give unto all those that are ordained unto 
eternal life. You know that passage in Acts 
13, 48. who were ordained to eternal life believed. It's not 
that they believed and therefore were ordained to eternal life, 
it's that they were ordained to eternal life and therefore 
they believed. That's Reformed theology. That's 
the system of God's sovereign grace and that's what they underscore. 
So determining or promising to give unto all those that are 
ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing 
and able to believe. So if faith is a condition, how 
do I fulfill that condition? Not my free will, not my free 
choice, not my good deeds, not my law-keeping, but by the power 
of the Holy Spirit who causes this dead sinner to be raised 
from the dead and gives the graces of faith and repentance and enables 
us to meet that condition. So God not only specifies what 
the condition is, but he gives the grace in order for us to 
comply with that particular condition. So I think this is important. 
We need to make sure that we don't jettison the reality that 
faith is absolutely essential. It is conditional with reference 
to salvation. But we need to further explain, 
like the confession does here, that it's not generated from 
the heart of man. It's not his free choice. It's 
not his free will. It is from the sovereign grace 
of God Most High that he makes them willing and able to believe. And then thirdly, we have the 
biblical revelation of God's covenant. The biblical revelation 
of God's covenant in paragraph 3. And there is movement in this 
particular paragraph. That's why the title, Biblical 
Revelation of God's Covenant. And it touches on the three primary 
covenants that we speak of when we deal with covenant theology. 
The first is the covenant of grace, the second is the covenant 
of redemption, and the third is the covenant of works. Now 
those particular terms are not necessarily stated in paragraph 
three, But as we understand from theology, even though a particular 
term might be absent from a particular passage, it doesn't mean the 
doctrine is absent. In other words, the word Trinity 
is not found in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity or 
the doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the Bible. And 
so because those three are not named specifically, we cannot 
conclude that therefore they didn't believe in those things. 
No, this is just telling us about the movement of God in terms 
of covenant theology. And when I say the movement of 
God, I don't mean that God actually moves or, you know, just how 
we interpret or how we see or how the movement from our vantage 
point in terms of the way God deals with us covenantally. So 
it deals with the covenant of grace in the first section, the 
covenant of redemption, and then the covenant of works. In the 
first place, note the revelation of the covenant of grace. Paragraph 
3. And again, this amplifies what 
paragraph 2 has already talked about. It's developing, it's 
explaining, it's further drawing out the teaching concerning this 
covenant of grace. So it says, this covenant is 
revealed in the gospel, first of all, to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman. So you can turn to Genesis 
3.15. Genesis 3.15, this is the first promise or first announcement 
of God's salvation of His people through the Redeemer that He 
Himself would provide. the first gospel promise. And notice that this is where 
our confession traces the covenant of grace too. This covenant is 
revealed in the gospel first of all to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman. Remember the particular 
context, the fall of Adam and Eve into transgression and into 
sin. The Lord God comes to deal with them or to reckon with them. 
And with reference to the serpent, the Lord God in His statement 
to the serpent announces a program of redemption for his people. Genesis 3.14, so the Lord God 
said to the serpent, because you have done this, you are cursed 
more than all cattle and more than every beast of the field. 
On your belly you shall go and you shall eat dust all the days 
of your life. And I will put enmity between 
you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall 
bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Now this refers 
to the Lord Jesus Christ. And I think it is imperative 
that we understand again the divine provision, the divine 
answer to man's problem. I will put enmity. God will correct 
the problem. God will deal with the breach, 
God will undertake on behalf of His people. He says, I will 
put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed 
and her seed. And obviously the seed here is 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and that last portion deals with how He 
would accomplish redemption. He shall bruise your head, and 
you shall bruise His heel. So there are at least three things 
that we gain from our understanding of Genesis 3.15. In the first 
place, the promised Redeemer would be a man born of a woman. 
The promised Redeemer would be a man born of a woman. God does 
not promise to send an angel. God does not promise to send, 
you know, some other type of being, help from aliens from 
above. But He promises to send a man 
born of a woman. Now some see here even the foreshadowing 
of the virgin birth, because only the woman is mentioned, 
only the woman is referred to. I think that that's certainly 
something we ought to entertain. But the second thing is that 
we ought to observe that the promised Redeemer would accomplish 
victory over Satan. It says, he shall bruise your 
head. Now certainly in the bruising or the crushing of a head, we 
see victory on the part of the one bruising or crushing. On 
the part of the one being bruised or crushed, we see defeat. So 
the promise in Genesis 3.15 includes a man born of a woman, a man 
born of a woman that would accomplish victory over Satan, and then 
thirdly, the promised redeemer would accomplish victory over 
Satan by his suffering and by his death. Notice, he shall bruise 
your head and you shall bruise his heel. Now, I think the common 
interpretation goes like this. At the cross, Christ Almighty 
crushes the head of the serpent. And that's the bruising your 
head reference. But comparatively, what Christ 
undergoes is really only a bruising of His heel. But I think that 
the comparison is between the way that the devil, or what results 
in the devil's crushing, and what results in the means by 
which Christ crushes. In other words, his suffering 
and death is the means by which he accomplishes total victory 
over the devil. It's not just comparative in 
the sense of a head wound and a heel wound. That heel wound 
meant death for our Lord Jesus Christ, and most likely in Genesis 
3.15, that's what's in view, because a serpent is something 
that is venomous. And notice where a serpent would 
typically bite. It would be on the lower extremities, 
the heel, for instance. And so what is being suggested 
here is not a comparison between head wound and heel wound, though 
I think that's present, but the means of death is the means by 
which this head wound is inflicted and the means by which or through 
which this heel wound is inflicted. A man by the name of Michael 
Reitelnick in a book All of you should read. It's called the 
Messianic Hope. He says, since in the context 
the tempter has taken the form of a serpent, it is likely that 
the tempter's blow would be equated with a serpent's bite. And in 
the case of this animal, the Hebrew generally uses it to speak 
of a venomous and lethal snake. Most likely, therefore, the text 
is speaking of two comparable death blows. The future Redeemer 
will strike the head of the tempter and thereby kill it. And at the 
same time, the tempter will strike the heel of the Redeemer and 
kill him. So Genesis 3.15 gives us a program 
of God's redemption. It gives us a program of God's 
covenant of grace, a deliverer born of woman, a deliverer that 
would indeed crush the serpent. a deliverer that would crush 
the serpent by the means of his own suffering and death. The 
rest of the Bible essentially comments or applies this particular 
text. And then the confession goes 
on after having stated that. This covenant is revealed in 
the gospel. First of all, to Adam and the promise of salvation 
by the seed of the woman, and then it goes on to say, and afterward 
by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed 
in the New Testament. I think it's important for us 
to understand what is meant here. It says, "...and afterward by 
farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed 
in the New Testament." So you have the revelation of the covenant 
of grace initially with Adam at Genesis 3.15, but its full 
discovery doesn't come until the New Testament. The full discovery 
of that covenant of grace doesn't come until Jesus in Matthew 26 
says, this is my blood which is shed for many. This is my 
blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission 
of sins. It's imperative that we identify 
the covenant of grace with the new covenant. It's imperative 
that we identify the covenant of grace with what Christ wrought. Some paedo-baptists want to identify 
the covenant of grace with Abraham, and that drives their inclusion 
of infants in the scheme of redemption. That's their covenant theology. 
They see that the Abrahamic was indeed the covenant of grace, 
And therefore, because babies were circumcised in that time 
frame of the covenant of grace, therefore we ought to baptize 
babies in this application of the covenant of grace. It's a 
covenantal theological argument. And our confession certainly 
sees the contours of redemptive history, and it sees the movement 
throughout redemptive history, but it doesn't identify the covenant 
of grace, holy or foley, with any other covenant than the New 
Covenant. So, what are these farther steps 
that are given to us here? And afterward, by farther steps, 
until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament. 
These are the historical covenants that we find in redemptive history. 
God makes the promise in Genesis 3, and then He moves that promise 
along by way of these historical covenants until it's fully realized 
or fully discovered in the New Testament, in the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. So, there was a covenant made 
with Noah. Right? The Noahic covenants, one of 
those farther steps. And what the Noahic covenant 
provides for is the context of God's common grace for the proclamation 
and the exercise of special grace. God's promise not to ever destroy 
the earth again is founded upon that declaration to Noah. It 
is revealed by way of covenant, and that sets the context for 
the outflow of redemptive grace through the means of gospel preaching. The second farther step is the 
Abrahamic Covenant. And again, the passages for Noah 
are Genesis 6, Genesis 9, the Abrahamic Covenant, Genesis 12, 
15, and then chapter 17 in the book of Genesis. Now, as I said, 
our paedo-baptist brethren, and they are brethren, if they have 
faith in Jesus Christ, they are brothers and sisters in Jesus 
Christ, no matter how they view the application of sacraments 
under the new covenant. But our brethren, our Paedo-Baptists, 
as I said, identify the Abrahamic with the covenant of grace. There's 
a lot more going on with the Abrahamic covenant than just 
to saddle it as the covenant of grace. And the best thing 
I can do is recommend that you read Pascal Denaltz, The Distinctiveness 
of Particular Baptist, right? Or is it just Baptist? The Distinctiveness 
of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault. It's not a 
long book, it's a brief read, but his treatment of the Abrahamic 
Covenant and his treatment of how the particular Baptist treated 
the Abrahamic Covenant is truly illuminating and it is helpful 
for the discussion. in covenant theology. But just 
to say, as our paedo-brethren do, that the Abrahamic was the 
covenant of grace is going to land us into some difficulties 
when we start to work out the implications later, not least 
of which is, do we include our babies in baptism? The third is the Mosaic or the 
Old Covenant, Exodus 19, Exodus 20, Exodus chapter 24. Now, there's 
a lot of discussion here with reference to the Mosaic or the 
Old Covenant. In fact, the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, where this paragraph greatly differs from what we 
find in Westminster, the Westminster says there's one covenant of 
grace in two administrations. One covenant of grace, two administrations. An old covenant administration 
and a new covenant administration, but one covenant of grace. Note 
that the Baptists here do not identify the old covenant as 
the covenant of grace. Note that they do not suggest 
that the old covenant was the covenant of grace. Remember the 
old covenant was based on do this and you will live. That's 
more covenant of works-ish than it is covenant of grace-ish. And particular Baptists recognized 
that and would not commit to a one covenant, two administration 
system. I should say that it wasn't just 
particular Baptists. Notable theologians like Samuel 
Pettow and John Owen, who were Pettow Baptists themselves, did 
not identify the Old Covenant as the Covenant of Greats. There 
were many, many outside of the Baptist movement that would not 
commit to the old covenant as being a covenant of grace. But 
nevertheless, it was one of those farther steps. God gives the 
promise in Genesis 3, and that promise is moved along in the 
Noahic, and in the Abrahamic, and in the Mosaic, and then in 
that last final step in terms of a historical covenant, the 
Davidic covenant. the Davidic covenant, that covenant 
made with David in 2 Samuel chapter 7. So you see, all of these show 
or evidence something concerning the covenant of grace, but we 
ought not to identify them as the covenant of grace. In fact, 
Samuel Petto basically says what our confession says here. He 
says, all the ancient covenant expressors I think that means 
expressions. I love expressors. I think that's 
a great word. I'm pretty sure word underlined 
it as not being a word. Puritans did that. They would 
just make stuff up. No. I don't think they just made 
stuff up. Or they'd add an ICAL to everything. Papistical or whatever other 
word they'd add a TICAL to it just to make it even more interesting. But all the ancient covenant 
expressors run jointly to Jesus Christ and also to believers, 
which are his seed. The promises to Adam, Abraham, 
David, and etc. were not so many distinct covenants 
of grace. They were but various gradual 
discoveries of the same covenant, according to the variety of occasions 
in the several ages, every new one being for some new end, and 
bringing with it a further degree of manifestation, and all run 
to Jesus Christ and us. On Genesis 3.15, Peto says this, 
thus he primarily was the seed of the woman that was promised 
to break the serpent's head. He is that seed of Abraham in 
whom all the nations are blessed. He is the royal seed of David 
to be enthroned of whose kingdom there shall be no end. So back 
to our confession, it is important for us as Baptists to be sure, 
but as I think responsible exegetes of Scripture, to realize the 
covenant is revealed in the gospel, first of all to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman, afterward by farther steps 
until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament. 
So it's best to identify the covenant of grace with the new 
covenant. Jesus inaugurates the new covenant 
in His blood, and that brings to fruition those ancient expressions, 
to use the pedo-language, that run to and lead us to the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And Ephesians 2.12 indicates 
this sort of thing as well. Paul there speaks of a plurality 
of covenants of a singular promise. He calls it the covenants of 
promise. And if we're following our confession, 
the idea is the promise made to Adam, or to the snake, ultimately, 
in the garden. That's the promise. It's furthered 
along by those historical covenants until the full discovery thereof 
is completed in the New Testament. So that's the revelation of God's 
covenant of grace. Notice, secondly, it is founded 
in the covenant of redemption. Note what we find in our confession. And it is founded in that eternal 
covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son 
about the redemption of the elect. You see, it speaks to what's 
called the covenant of redemption. Again, that language isn't there, 
but that's what it means. It is founded in that eternal 
covenant transaction that was between the father and the son 
about the redemption of the elect. The covenant of redemption, in 
the language of Muller, emphasizes the eternal, inviolable, and 
Trinitarian foundation of the covenant of grace. The idea being 
that when Paul says in Ephesians 1.4, just as He chose us in Him 
before the foundation of the world. So prior to the foundation 
of the world, we have eternity. I mean, not that eternity appears 
before the foundation of the world. It's always difficult 
to talk about eternity and to talk about time relative to eternity. We speak of eternity past or 
eternity future. That's almost as if to say there's 
an eternity present, and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Eternity is not measurable like 
time. That's why it's eternity. There's 
no clocks in heaven. There's no clocks in hell. There's 
no... I'm sorry, there's no clocks. I actually think there is going 
to be some time constraint placed upon us as creatures, but for 
God. He doesn't get up at 8, he doesn't 
go to bed at 10, he doesn't have this time constraint. And the 
prophet Isaiah, he says he inhabits eternity. But the idea being 
is that before the foundation of the world, there was this 
eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect, wherein the father 
promised to the son a certain number of persons should the 
son undertake and go into the world and save them. And we see 
so much of our Lord's language suggestive of this eternal transaction. Many times in John's gospel he 
says, for this reason I was sent. We see the reference there in 
Ephesians 1. We could develop the covenant 
of redemption at length. I'm just giving you the quick 
nuts and bolts, but there is All those things that are necessary 
for a covenantal transaction are present. You've got parties, 
God the Father, Christ, the Spirit. You've got promises, the salvation 
of the elect. You've got stipulations, the 
obedience rendered by the Son, and the punishment unto death. 
You've got sanction. You've got benefit. All those 
things that are that are intrinsic to covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ 
undergoes on our behalf. And if we appreciate the movement 
in this chapter, we ought to appreciate that for Jesus Christ, 
the covenant of grace was the covenant of redemption on our 
behalf, right? If God promised to Christ to 
save His people from their sins and Christ undertook to live 
and die and rise again for us, when Christ is engaged in that, 
what is a covenant of grace for us is obedience to the covenant 
of redemption for Christ. That's why he highlights and 
specifies throughout his earthly ministry that he's obedient to 
his father. My meat is to do the will of 
him who sent me. He's a covenant servant and he 
is covenant mediator and he is effecting this transaction made 
with his father. Clark and van Drunen write, when 
Jesus Christ earned the righteousness to be imputed to His people, 
He was fulfilling not only the historical covenant of works 
as the second Adam, but also the covenant He made with His 
Father. You should appreciate this sort of relationship between 
this covenant of redemption, this eternal covenant transaction 
between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect 
That provides the blueprint, that provides the superstructure, 
that provides the plan for the Lord Jesus to enter into this 
world, take on our humanity, live in obedience to the Father's 
law, die as a sacrifice and a substitute, and be raised the third day. 
He is engaged in obedience to this covenant. And Birkhoff, 
we read this a couple of times ago in our studies on Saturday 
morning. He says, though the covenant of redemption is the 
eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and as far as sinners 
are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ 
a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For him, 
the law of the original covenant applied, namely that eternal 
life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. 
As the last Adam, Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward 
for faithful obedience, and not at all as an unmerited gift of 
grace. And what He has done as the representative 
and surety of all His people, they are no more in duty bound 
to do. The work has been done, the reward 
is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits 
of Christ's accomplished work through grace. So when we say 
that it's a covenant of grace, we need to be mindful that for 
Jesus, it was an act of compliance with this covenant of redemption, 
but as well, it was obedience to the covenant of works. And 
that's how the chapter in paragraph three ends. Notice, after highlighting 
the covenant of grace promised to Adam, moved along by farther 
steps, full discovery in the New Testament, based on or founded 
in that eternal covenant of redemption, we see that this is indeed the 
divine response to the broken covenant of works. Notice, and 
it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all of the posterity 
of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed 
immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with 
God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. This is a reference to the Covenant 
of Works. Again, the language Covenant 
of Works is not used, but when we look at this, man now, or 
being now, utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. What 
were those terms that Adam stood in his state of innocency in 
Genesis chapter 2? That has been identified as the 
covenant of works, or the covenant of life, or the covenant of creation, 
or the covenant of friendship, but we will use the terminology 
covenant of works. We need to appreciate what the 
authors say, that this covenant of grace is the exclusive provision 
for God's elect. It is alone by the grace of this 
covenant. as well. It indicates the impossibility 
of acceptance with God in terms of the covenant of works. And 
so we ought to appreciate that the confession highlights something 
that some people say it doesn't. In other words, there's some 
debate among Reformed Baptists or those confessing being Reformed 
Baptists that the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith does 
not teach the covenant of works. Now, the Westminster Catechism 
and the Savoy and 7.2, both are the same there, have a statement 
concerning the covenant of works, and it reads this way. The first 
covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised 
to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and 
personal obedience. That's the covenant of works 
in its most basic definition or explanation. If you compare 
Second London Confession with the Westminster and the Savoy, 
you will notice conspicuously that that statement is missing. 
So some have said, well, that statement is missing, therefore, 
the particular Baptist did not believe that there was a covenant 
of words. Again, if the terminology is 
missing, but the concept of the doctrine is present, we conclude 
that they did, in fact, affirm it. And though the terminology 
is missing, this idea of incapability of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency, that's 
the covenant of works. That says essentially what we 
find in 7.2 in the Westminster. But as well, the Baptists did 
use the language of Covenant of Works. Notice in chapter 6, 
paragraph 1. Again, it's not here present 
in terms of the language, but the concept. The doctrine, the 
teaching, 6-1, although God created man upright and perfect, and 
gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept 
it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did 
not long abide in this honor. That's the covenant of works, 
right? You all see that. It's kind of 
like going to Matthew 28 and seeing the three persons of the 
one God being referred to and saying, that's the Trinity, right? 
Or going to the River Jordan in Matthew 3 and seeing Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. That's the Trinity. Though the 
word Trinity is not there, we know that the Trinity is there 
because the wording or the language tells us. But the Confession 
of Faith specifically uses the language covenant of works in 
chapter 19, paragraph 6, and again in chapter 20, paragraph 
1. So it's not an omission on the part of the Baptist divines 
in London. It is there, conceptually, doctrinally, 
and they are saying that the covenant of grace is the alone 
provision for sinners in order to enter into acceptance with 
God, it being an impossibility. or an utter incapability of man 
being accepted with God upon those terms on which Adam stood 
in his state of innocency. Jim Renahan says probably they 
left it out because it's a positive treatment of God's covenant of 
grace. But again, I hope that you see 
that it's there in our confession. But more importantly, is it there 
in our Bibles? The covenant of works is under 
attack. The covenant of works is being 
stripped out of theological discussion. And I suggest that if you mess 
up on the covenant of works, chances are very high you're 
going to mess up on the covenant of grace. If you do not have 
a proper understanding of Adam as a covenantal head, you may 
not have a proper understanding of Jesus as a covenantal head. 
If you don't see the distinction between the works that were commanded 
for Adam, the works fulfilled by Christ, and how it applies 
or appertains to us, then you're going to have some issues or 
challenges. Now, thankfully, there are those who have reworked 
the covenant of works and have still come out solid on justification 
by faith. But typically speaking, If somebody 
has a faulty view of justification by faith alone, I would submit 
that they have a faulty understanding of the covenant of works. And 
that's not just me. I think Cam would agree, too. 
But Brockle, various men in the history of the church. But is 
the covenant of works present in Genesis chapter 2? You can 
turn there. Just a quick, quick summary of 
the covenant of works. We're spending a little more 
time here because I don't think anybody really struggles with 
the revelation of God's covenant of grace. I don't think anybody 
has a problem with that. Covenant of redemption causes 
some people to stumble. Some don't see it. Some don't 
believe that it's there. Some have a two covenant scheme 
where they have a covenant of works, covenant of grace. And 
so the covenant of redemption I don't think has been universally 
received within the church. But in terms of the covenant 
of works, it is positively dangerous to jettison it, to get rid of 
it, to exclude it from theological discussion with reference to 
covenant. But just a couple of things we ought to observe. In 
the first place, the use of the name Yahweh. In Genesis 1, the 
emphasis is upon Elohim, and I'm not suggesting that Elohim 
and Yahweh are different beings. Elohim is the generic reference 
for God. It is intriguing that when we 
come to Genesis 2, Yahweh is employed. Yahweh is utilized 
by the author. What is Yahweh? It speaks to 
several things, one of which is covenant Lord. And so the 
introduction of the movement in the narrative from Elohim 
to Yahweh ought to signal in our heads a shift or a change 
or a matter of emphasis that the author wants us to take notice 
to. Somebody recently asked me why when I'm reading some of 
the Old Testament passages I actually use the name Yahweh. Well, if 
you have a New King James Bible, I don't know how the ESVs or 
the NIVs carry it out, but in the Old Testament, in the New 
King James, it capitalizes L-O-R-D if that is the covenantal name 
Yahweh. If it's capital L, small o-r-d, 
that's typically Adonai. God translates Elohim. And so the reason we do sometimes 
use the name Yahweh is because writers, in writing their narrative, 
are highlighting something in the use of that particular name. 
Names mean something in the Bible, and when the writer shifts from 
the use of Elohim to Yahweh, it ought to at least indicate 
to us something is going on in the passage. A second thing we 
ought to observe is the absence of the Hebrew word berit, and 
that simply means covenant. Again, back to that word concept 
fallacy. Because the word is absent does 
not necessarily mean that the doctrine is absent. And there's 
an interesting parallel. 2 Samuel chapter 7 is the Davidic 
covenant. Intriguingly, the word covenant 
does not appear in 2 Samuel chapter 7. But in Psalm 89, the psalmist 
says that what God did with David was a covenant. So there's a 
perfect illustration that though the word covenant is absent from 
2 Samuel 7, it doesn't mean that the concept or the doctrine is 
absent because later revelation indicates that it was in fact 
a covenant. And the same thing is true here. 
Just because berit does not occur in chapter 2 does not mean that 
covenant is not present. Thirdly, we ought to acknowledge 
the elements of a covenant are all present. There are parties, 
God and man. There is stipulation, a positive 
law concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do 
not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Covenants 
always include that sort of a thing. Thirdly, there is a promise, 
and the promise is life for obedience. Now, when you search the narrative 
specifically, God doesn't say, if you obey, I will give you 
life. That is a necessary consequence from his curse threatened upon 
Adam. In the day that you eat, dying 
you shall die. Well, what can we imply by necessary 
consequence? On the day that you don't eat, 
living you will live. So, there's a promise of life 
for obedience given to Adam, hence the structure, the nomenclature, 
covenant of works. If Adam obeys, if Adam merits, 
if Adam toes the line, if Adam does what God commands, then 
Adam will be given or conferred life. It's a covenant of works 
wherein he stood. And then as well the sanction, 
the promise of death should he disobey. So all of the elements 
are present in terms of covenant. The absence of the word is not 
decisive because the parallel in the Davidic covenant indicates 
the word can be absent but the doctrine present. The use of 
the covenantal name Yahweh. But then later redemptive revelation 
indicates something unique going on in the garden. You can turn 
to Job 31. I'm not suggesting that Job here is functioning 
as a John Owen discoursing on covenant theology, but just to 
highlight that later biblical authors or later books of the 
Bible, perhaps is a better way to say it, reflect upon what 
happened in the garden. Just a brief reference here, 
and then we'll move on to a couple of more notable ones. Notice 
in Job 31.33, if I have covered my transgressions as Adam by 
hiding my iniquity in my bosom. Again, it's not a fully developed 
doctrine of the covenant of works, but it's a revelation of the 
reality that later men in redemptive history reflected upon what went 
on in the garden. And it was a powerful reflection. It was something that was big. 
It was something that was sort of typical or pattern-like for 
man. But then notice in Isaiah 24, 
verses 5 and 6. Isaiah 24, verses 5 and 6. Picking up at verse 4, the earth 
mourns and fades away, the world languishes and fades away, the 
haughty people of the earth languish. The earth is also defiled under 
its inhabitants because they have transgressed the laws, changed 
the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore the curse 
has devoured the earth and those who dwell in it are desolate. 
Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned and few 
men are left. There's a reference here to an 
everlasting covenant. Richard Barcellos, who actually 
has an excellent little treatment out on the Covenant of Works. 
It's in the series, Recovering Our Confessional Heritage, and 
this one is by Pastor Barcellos on the Covenant of Works. It's 
about that thick, it's an easy read, and it's very helpful on 
this idea of the Covenant of Works. But commenting on Isaiah 
24, he says, The curse which extends to the entire earth came 
about due to transgressed laws, violated statutes, and a broken 
covenant. Since the earth was cursed due 
to Adam's sin as our representative, Adam broke covenant with God 
in the Garden of Eden, and the effects of his covenant breaking 
affects those who live on the earth, that is, everyone. Here is a prophet writing long 
after Adam was created and long after Moses wrote, utilizing 
principles that first started with Adam to explain the universal 
guilt of man. In this sense, Isaiah was very 
Pauline. Or better yet, Paul was very 
Isaianic. So you see, this is later commentary 
concerning the situation in the garden applied to mankind as 
a whole. And then Hosea 6, Hosea chapter 
6, specifically verse 7. If you have the New King James, 
your marginal reading here is to be preferred. Hosea 6, 7, 
But like Adam they transgressed the covenant, there they dealt 
treacherously with me. So what we have here is Hosea 
looking at the situation involving Israel and likening them unto 
Adam who transgressed The covenant, which covenant? The covenant 
of works he found himself in in Genesis chapter 2. Now there's 
a great deal of discussion on Hosea chapter 6 verse 7 and whether 
it does apply to Adam or to generic man. Pastor Barcelos comments, 
the translation, like Adam, has a long pedigree, going back at 
least to Jerome. Warfield states that due to Jerome's 
translation to the Christians of the West, Hosea 6-7 spoke 
of a covenant of God with Adam. And then Warfield has an article 
dealing with this particular subject. John Fesco affirms this 
particular position. But even if this passage does 
refer to men generically, the rest of the data presented here 
substantiates or confirms the reality that there was a covenantal 
arrangement that Adam stood in before God Most High. It was 
a covenant of works, and as a result of his failure, as a result of 
his sin and rebellion against God, and the plunging of his 
posterity into sin, the only means by which man will ever 
have acceptance with God is through the covenant of grace. It is 
not through this broken covenant of works. There is not a one 
of us who can do everything that God commands us to do and somehow 
earn for ourselves eternal life. We ought to praise God for the 
covenant of grace. The final aspect that I think 
is necessary is the parallel between Adam and Christ. If for 
any other reason we affirm a covenant of works, we ought to affirm 
it as a result of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Paul 
there develops covenant theology. He speaks of two men, Adam and 
it's through his disobedience that death entered. It's in Christ 
that all shall be made alive. Two representatives, two federal 
heads, two covenant mediators. And through Adam we die, through 
Christ we are made alive. The covenant of works provides 
the biblical and theological context for the work of the Lord 
Jesus as the last Adam. A faulty understanding of the 
former typically results in a faulty understanding of the latter. 
See, I think if you get rid of the covenant of works, you're 
going to have to put them in the covenant of grace. In fact, 
Brockle, one of the Dutch Reformed theologians, says, whoever errs 
here or denies the existence of the covenant of works will 
not understand the covenant of grace and will readily err concerning 
the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will readily 
deny that Christ, by His act of obedience, has merited a right 
to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several 
parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, 
also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the 
covenant of works must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning 
the covenant of grace as well. Now, I realize that if you haven't 
done a lot of reading in covenant theology, it may sound like I'm 
you know, speaking Chinese to you, but stick with it, understand 
what's going on in this particular chapter, understand why it's 
worded the way it is, because it oftentimes is not only a positive 
presentation of the truth, but it serves as those guardrails 
to keep us from veering off to one side or the other, and ending 
up dead, either ending up, I don't want to equate dispensationalism 
with death, but you get the gist, right? We want to make sure that 
we're not departing from the truth, and those who reject the 
covenant of works typically have to admit works into the new covenant. Not Jesus' works, our works. Perhaps you've heard of covenantal 
faithfulness. We're saved by our covenantal 
faithfulness. That's what the new perspective 
on Paul teaches. That's just Roman Catholicism 
decked out in so-called Protestant garb. The federal vision teaches 
the same sort of thing. This idea that faith in Christ 
plus my works is what ultimately grants me acceptance with God. 
Well, that is unallowable. It is by grace alone through 
faith alone in Christ alone. That doesn't mean we're not supposed 
to be faithful. It doesn't mean we're not supposed 
to engage in good works. It just means that our ground 
for acceptance before God does not hinge upon our faithfulness 
or upon our works. It all hinges upon Christ's good 
works and Christ's faithfulness as our representative head. So 
you deny the covenant of works, and it becomes very difficult 
to maintain a strict view of the covenant of grace. Samuel 
Ward, in a very helpful book on the covenant of works, says, 
minimizing the difference between the pre-fall and post-fall covenant 
seems to mean you get more grace before the fall and less grace 
afterward. Our covenantal obedience is emphasized 
as the way of maintaining the covenant relationship and inheriting 
its blessing. This is the problem with the 
denial of the covenant of works. It ends up being the case, again, 
not every single time. There are some blessed inconsistencies 
out there. But if we deny what's going on 
in the garden, we're going to have problems with what happens 
with Christ. We're going to have to smuggle 
in some of our faithfulness, some of our good works. We're 
going to have to be Roman Catholic when all is said and done. And 
it's a faith plus works that gains me acceptance with God. 
That's not what Scripture teaches. It's faith alone, because of 
what Christ alone has accomplished in His works and in His death 
on behalf of sinners. So that's hopefully an overview 
that is somewhat helpful. If you're more confused than 
when you came in, then spend the half hour before service 
talking to Kim. And he'll set you straight and 
hopefully get you on your path. If anybody's interested in reading 
on covenant theology, you can email me. I've got some books 
to recommend that I think would be very helpful. So let's pray. 
Father, we thank you for this doctrine of the covenant. We 
thank you that his oath, his covenant, his blood does support 
us in the in the whelming flood and help us to see that this 
isn't simply theory, but it is the foundation upon which we 
stand. your promise to save your people 
through Jesus Christ, the sending of the Son into this world, to 
take on our humanity, to live for us, to die for us, to be 
raised the third day. God, help us to rejoice in the 
reality that our salvation is sealed, our salvation is is secure, 
it's stable, it's permanent because of the work of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. We ask that you would bless our morning worship, help 
us to sing and to pray and to rally around Scripture in a way 
that is well-pleasing in your sight. And we ask through Christ 
our Lord. Amen.