Is the New Covenant equal to the Covenant of Grace?

[malcolmmaxwell60]

According to the Westminster Confession, the one single Covenant of Grace is administered in two dispensations (no pun intended): first, under the old covenant, second under the new covenant. So both the old and new covenants make up the Covenant of Grace, but in the words of the Confession, they are administered differently. IE, the old covenant was the gospel but the gospel through promises, pictures and types (Canaan, the sacrifices, Passover, etc), while the new covenant is the same "substance or essence" but is given loosed of all its old covenant types and shadows. The old covenant includes the Gen.3:15 promise, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; they all were part of the Covenant of Grace but in all of these manifestations they were "clothed" with the earthly, revealed less clearly, contained additional parts that would later pass away (OT ceremonial laws likened to the external fuel tank that drops off the space shuttel when it's no longer needed), etc etc. We could say the old covenant was Christ and the gospel promises fore-shadowed, the new covenant is those same things fulfilled. The old covenant was Christ and the gospel promised; the new covenant is the salvation wrought through Christ actually performed.

Yes

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

They were save


OT believers are saved by the Covenant of Grace, too.

A promise of a coming covenant is not the same as the actual enacting of such a covenant, right?

All sinners who ever were saved are saved due to the Cross of Christ, and that Covenant of Grace was finalized at time of death of Jesus for sinners. This is why we baptists see the actual church existing from Pentecost forward.

 

[Dachaser]

I will strive to be more precise in my language. I certainly understand the Paedobaptist view of 1 substance of the CoG administered differently under the OC and the NC. I was not trying to say your view equates the NC w/ the CoG, thus my remark about the extent that the NC is the CoG.

This discussion does highlight some real distinctions/differences between reformed Presbyterians and Baptists regarding this issue.

 

[Pergamum]

All sinners who ever were saved are saved due to the Cross of Christ, and that Covenant of Grace was finalized at time of death of Jesus for sinners. This is why we baptists see the actual church existing from Pentecost forward.[/QUOT

No. I believe the Church existed with the first believers, perhaps Adam and Eve.

Even the NT calls Israel "the church in the wilderness."

 

[Dachaser]

No. I believe the Church existed with the first believers, perhaps Adam and Eve.
This is one of the main differences between reformed baptists and presbatraina, as we would see the Church actually strting up at pentacost.
Even the NT calls Israel "the church in the wilderness."

This is one of the main differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians, as we would see the Church actually strting up at pentacost.

 

[Timotheos]

I/we do not see how one arrives at 2-covenants with Abraham unless one has brought it to the text.

The women are viewed as signs/allegories of two covenants. Only one of the women is regarded as legitimate and wife, that's Sarah. To extend the metaphor, she's the covenant with Abraham. Hagar is not legitimate as wife; she's not covenanted at all, but is a slave and a concubine. Hagar is then identified first with Sinai, then with the Jerusalem-below ("that now is"). Jerusalem-above is tied directly to Abraham via Sarah. Sinai is turned into a covenant of interposition, something temporary that must be removed so that the original, Wifely covenant can come into its own.

Then follows the Is.54 quote, honoring Sarah (the desolated), who ends up with more children than "she who had the man." That last bit of phrasing is a deliberate slight, making it clear that the first to bear a child does not bear a legitimate son; but only the son of the Wife is legitimate. The point being: one must belong to the Abrahamic covenant (by faith, through the true son/Son) and then he inherits all things. If all one has is Sinai, then it is as if he is at best Ishmael, and therefore is no heir. Those who presently have the Jerusalem-below think they've got the inheritance. They do not.

Just to be clear, I was arguing that Paul sees 2 covenants arising from the Abr. Cov.--the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah). He says as much in 4:24. This corresponds to the reality of the dual nature or dichotomy to the Abr. Cov. The first is physical and typological, the second is spiritual or salvific and anti-typical. Paul is simply expounding on the dual nature of the Abr. Cov. in Gal. 4.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Just to be clear, I was arguing that Paul sees 2 covenants arising from the Abr. Cov.--the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah). He says as much in 4:24. This corresponds to the reality of the dual nature or dichotomy to the Abr. Cov. The first is physical and typological, the second is spiritual or salvific and anti-typical. Paul is simply expounding on the dual nature of the Abr. Cov. in Gal. 4.

You were clear at first. 4:24 doesn't say there's two covenants "arising" from the Abrahamic covenant. Was there a covenant with Hagar? or Ishmael? No, there's the Abrahamic, which is liberty (to which Isaac, and believers now, and all faithful in between belong, v28). And the Siniatic, which is bondage. That's all it says.

Like I said, you have to bring it to this text. You have to believe there's a "dual nature/dichotomy" in Abraham's cov. a priori. Everyone works with what he thinks are implications, whether from a text or impacting a given text from related passages. Those are distinct from the data set given by the text.

 

[Timotheos]

You were clear at first. 4:24 doesn't say there's two covenants "arising" from the Abrahamic covenant. Was there a covenant with Hagar? or Ishmael? No, there's the Abrahamic, which is liberty (to which Isaac, and believers now, and all faithful in between belong, v28). And the Siniatic, which is bondage. That's all it says.

Like I said, you have to bring it to this text. You have to believe there's a "dual nature/dichotomy" in Abraham's cov. a priori. Everyone works with what he thinks are implications, whether from a text or impacting a given text from related passages. Those are distinct from the data set given by the text.

I could rightly argue that you are bringing to the text your interpretation just as easily. But the text seems pretty clear concerning the covenants. 4:24 say the 2 women (Hagar and Sarah) represent 2 covenants. So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect. If you are speaking historically, then I'd agree. But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai.

I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text. Taken as an allegory, and understanding the trajectory nature of this passage (Hagar first on the trajectory forward from Abraham to Mt. Sinai), it seems clear that the further trajectory and the Jerusalem above relates to the NC. This is also consistent contextually since ch. 4 is part of the argument of ch. 3 which situates itself off-gate w/ NC fulfillment of the Spirit (3:2, 14).

For the allegory to work at all, Abraham (representing the Abr. Cov.) having 2 covenants arising from him, the 2 women represent 2 covenants that relate to Abraham but are not the Abr. Cov. Otherwise the allegory falls apart.

Even further, the pastoral purpose of the allegory is in 4:31–5:1, "Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery." If the allegory was to urge the Galatian churches not to return to the yoke of circumcision in the OC, then (1) why would he argue to be a part of the circumcision covenant of Abraham? and (2) how could this argument even work on a redemptive historical understanding with "submitting again". They have moved forward to the freedom of the NC from the civil trappings of the OC (cf. ch. 2 and eating laws as an example). But you would have them not go back from the OC to the NC but from the OC further to the NC. Regardless of your view of the CoG and the Abr. Cov., your interpretation fails on a redemptive historical timeline for this text.

So this is not a priori brought to the text. This is rooted in exegesis and context.

My interpretation of the 2 women are further confirmed by commentators like Ryken (in the Reformed Expository Commentary) who claims that "Hagar stands for the old covenant" (p. 185) and "Sarah represents the new covenant" (p. 186). Likewise, Calvin said, "The two covenants, then, are the mothers, of whom children unlike one another are born; for the legal covenant makes slaves, and the evangelical covenant makes freemen."

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Dachaser]

I could rightly argue that you are bringing to the text your interpretation just as easily. But the text seems pretty clear concerning the covenants. 4:24 say the 2 women (Hagar and Sarah) represent 2 covenants. So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect. If you are speaking historically, then I'd agree. But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai.

I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text. Taken as an allegory, and understanding the trajectory nature of this passage (Hagar first on the trajectory forward from Abraham to Mt. Sinai), it seems clear that the further trajectory and the Jerusalem above relates to the NC. This is also consistent contextually since ch. 4 is part of the argument of ch. 3 which situates itself off-gate w/ NC fulfillment of the Spirit (3:2, 14).

For the allegory to work at all, Abraham (representing the Abr. Cov.) having 2 covenants arising from him, the 2 women represent 2 covenants that relate to Abraham but are not the Abr. Cov. Otherwise the allegory falls apart.

Even further, the pastoral purpose of the allegory is in 4:31–5:1, "Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery." If the allegory was to urge the Galatian churches not to return to the yoke of circumcision in the OC, then (1) why would he argue to be a part of the circumcision covenant of Abraham? and (2) how could this argument even work on a redemptive historical understanding with "submitting again". They have moved forward to the freedom of the NC from the civil trappings of the OC (cf. ch. 2 and eating laws as an example). But you would have them not go back from the OC to the NC but from the OC further to the NC. Regardless of your view of the CoG and the Abr. Cov., your interpretation fails on a redemptive historical timeline for this text.

So this is not a priori brought to the text. This is rooted in exegesis and context.

My interpretation of the 2 women are further confirmed by commentators like Ryken (in the Reformed Expository Commentary) who claims that "Hagar stands for the old covenant" (p. 185) and "Sarah represents the new covenant" (p. 186). Likewise, Calvin said, "The two covenants, then, are the mothers, of whom children unlike one another are born; for the legal covenant makes slaves, and the evangelical covenant makes freemen."

Sorry for the long post.

Baptists take that to be as you stated it being, as we would see more of a disconnect between the 2 Covenants then our Presbyterian brethren would see more of a continuity between two of them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I guess I should apologize also, in advance, for this long post.

So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect.

There's no covenant with Hagar. End of story. If there is one, then it is in Genesis. There is none in Genesis. Paul doesn't invent one for the Genesis account in Galatians. He is interpreting Scripture and redemptive history. The covenant he refers to is Sinai. He makes analogy (allegory) from Sinai to Hagar and to Ishmael (gives birth to bondage).

To say: this implies there must be previous covenant, appears to me a superfluous requirement. Sarah "gave Hagar to him to wife," Gen.16:3, but Scripture repeatedly denies the marital legitimacy of this union. You say: without the concept of two covenants arising from the one man Abraham (neither of these being his covenant, per se) the allegory falls apart--ergo, an antecedent necessity.

It may be that such a read is necessary according to your understanding of the pattern of biblical covenants. But if the covenant with Isaac is the SAME covenant as Abraham's, then it is clearly not the case the allegory falls apart; so I'm not caught on the horns of that dilemma you posed, since I believe Isaac's is the SAME covenant inherited from his father (he, the heir, in reference to the promise).

But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai.

This inverts Paul's expression. Sinai is the covenant, Hagar IS the allegory. The definitional distinction between "type" and "allegory" is too fine. You seem to trade heavily on the idea that there's some unique hermeneutic at work in this text, and unless one has that filter on, the allegory falls apart. I disagree. It's all RH interpretation.

I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text.

I'm bringing Sarah to the text and to the Abrahamic covenant? No, I'm recognizing that she's present in the text in parallel to Hagar; and she's by name connected to the covenant by God himself, Gen.17:15,19; 18:9-10, etc. This is not reading her into the text or the Abrahamic covenant; it's refusing to read her out.

---Sarah is the wife of Abraham (Gen.12:5; 17:15; 25:10, et passim; Mal.2:14; cf. Prv.2:17; Ps.55:20).
---She's "the freewoman," v22-23 and v30-31.
---She's the mother of "he" (Isaac) through promise, v23; which promise refers to the covenant (Gen.12:3; 15:4-5; cf. Ps.105:9 for synonymous parallelism).
---She's then connected analogically (in parallel to Hagar/Sinai/Jerusalem-now-is) to "Jerusalem above," v26, to which all believers are tied, v28 and v31.
---She's the allegorical (i.e. type, analogy) reference of Isaiah in his comment, ch.54:1, "barren" and "desolate;" which is why Paul appeals so adroitly to that text. Paul isn't being original in his interpretation; he's been preceded by Isaiah.​

Abraham's two sons provide the biblical starting point for the help-to-understanding Paul aims to provide (answering: Who is the true seed, the covenant-heir?). The mothers are brought into the picture because of the two sons, and the contrasting natures of the two women are highlighted, and by their conceptions, by their deliveries; and their destinies. Vv28 & 31 say, as plain as can be, "we and Isaac are children of promise... children of the freewoman." We are tied to this woman, Sarah; and she is the covenant-wife.

Finally, you are making (consistent with your Baptist convictions, I know this) the matter of circumcision to be of the essence of the Abrahamic covenant--you call it "the circumcision covenant." But we deny this, on the same basis we deny that baptism is of the essence of the New Covenant, "the baptism-covenant." The sign is not the thing signified; even if they are intended to be intimately connected. My wedding band is not my marriage, nor a piece of the essence of it; but I'm not taking it off just to prove how meaningless a sign actually is. Operationally, signs are not trivial.

But signs are open to change, for various reasons. And the big reason for the Galatians not submitting to circumcision was that taking on this passé covenant-sign served as a wedge, to get the yoke of legal-acceptance with God on the necks of Christians; effectively making Christianity a mere sect of Judaism, thus nullifying the cross of Christ. They were not aiming at getting Galatian Christians to join the Abrahamic covenant; but the Siniatic, and that as the Pharisees understood it to teach.

The problem facing the Galatians is that--because they accepted Paul's preaching of Christ--they were already in possession of the inheritance of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Moses, and all the rest of OT hope. If from this place, they accepted the Judaizer's arguments (that Paul got them so far, but not far enough), they were "fallen from grace." They were joining with those who were heirs of Ishmael, not Isaac; heirs of Sinai not Zion; heirs of the present Jerusalem and Temple, and not heirs of the Jerusalem above where Christ intercedes in a Temple not made by hands.

 

[Timotheos]

Maybe this is at root of where we seem to be talking past each other. Do you understand Gal. 4:21ff to be an allegory or simply a redemptive-historical and typological explanation? The difference is that in a typological approach "the connection between type and antitype must hold historically in order to justify the connection." (Meyer, Jason C.. The End of the Law, p. 118). However, allegory does not rely on historical accuracy but "Paul can characterize Hagar as an allegorical covenant, even though a historical covenant connected with Hagar did not exist." (Ibid.)

I take this passage as an allegory. You seem to take it as typological. Am I correct?

For what it's worth, Calvin (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.vi.iv.html) seemed to take this as an allegory:

Again, as the history which he quotes appeared to have no bearing on the question, he gives to it an allegorical interpretation.... In a word, Paul adduces the history, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abraham, and of the two nations in his two sons.

 

[Dachaser]

Maybe this is at root of where we seem to be talking past each other. Do you understand Gal. 4:21ff to be an allegory or simply a redemptive-historical and typological explanation? The difference is that in a typological approach "the connection between type and antitype must hold historically in order to justify the connection." (Meyer, Jason C.. The End of the Law, p. 118). However, allegory does not rely on historical accuracy but "Paul can characterize Hagar as an allegorical covenant, even though a historical covenant connected with Hagar did not exist." (Ibid.)

I take this passage as an allegory. You seem to take it as typological. Am I correct?

For what it's worth, Calvin (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.vi.iv.html) seemed to take this as an allegory:

Paul Himself stated that it was as you see it being.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In simple, I think Paul's is standard christic and apostolic exegesis of the OT, what in Reformation circles we generally call RH interpretation.

I don't think such a fine hermeneutical distinction as proposed above is found in terms, in particular this hapax legomena, Paul's use of "ἀλληγορούμενα." I see no need to presuppose a technical use of this Greek term as if borrowed from authors (early or late) who freely interpreted the Poets, or Philo's adaptation from them for his own free interpretation of Moses and the Prophets; rather than allowing this text (as with Scripture generally) to reveal this author's intent.

For my part, I don't see any reason to think Calvin parses any difference between "typological" and "allegorical" interpretation. From his commentary: after a digression into the abuse of the term allegory in the history of interpretation (under v22), Calvin uses the following variety of words indiscriminately to express Paul's sense of the passage: allegory, mystical or ἀναγωγή (anagogical), type, and figure/figurative/prefigured; along with "resemblance" and "comparison" (referring to σύστοιχα) for which he might have employed the synonym "analogy," which pertain to the correspondences that are set up. The vital thing is to catch the point of similarity. Calvin seems to think that those familiar with the Scriptures (or expected to be) should have no trouble observing the true connections.

In his own explanation of what ἀλληγορούμενα actually imports for Paul's use (as he prepares to explain him), he points to a number of OT elements that hardly anyone disputes are "types," such as circumcision, sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood; he implies that the same "allegory" belonging to those things is still present in our sacraments. Sinai is to "Hagar" as Christ is to "Passover." Abraham's family is the prefigured church; and "most memorable events which happened in it are so many types to us." In those words he tells us he's about to explain Paul's meaning typologically; for so he takes Paul's own intent by his own term.

Calvin is adamant about retaining the historical meaning. He will not depart from it. "In a word, Paul adduces the history, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants." There can be no doubt but for Calvin the sacred history in detail is the key to unpacking the spiritual truth. The history he has in mind here is particularly Gen.15-18 & 21; but not disconnected from the wider narrative to include the Torah. I would deny that Calvin is the least interested in departing from thoroughgoing "historical accuracy."

When the author (Meyer) writes that Paul characterizes Hagar as an allegorical covenant, I can take him one of two ways. I would prefer taking him to mean that the woman in her historical relations to holy history is rightly regarded as prefiguring later events and words beyond her history. The results are a sharper and fuller understanding of revelation in total.

Yet, based on our previous exchanges I'm not sure I can take him that way. Please correct me, but have you not proposed that Hagar-as-allegory is actually reified not beyond her historical relation to holy history, but actually within it? I may have misunderstood your intent, but the impression I have is that you see Gen.17 in some manner laying the initial foundation stone for the Mosaic legal-covenant (via circumcision). This reading might then give rise to that first-one/then-another interpretation of covenants (plural) with Abraham, in temporal progress making ch.22 contain a kind of "third" covenant (and ch.26 a "fourth" in succession, with Isaac, etc.).

Plainly, I'm not seeing but one covenant with Abraham. So far in Galatians, Paul has referred by the specific term "covenant": to the promise to Abraham 430yrs prior to the law, 3:17. So arguably when 4:22ff comes, he has already introduced both the covenants that primarily he wishes to contrast. Multiplying covenants with Abraham? Scripture speaks of but one, even speaking of one with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which after-generations are said to possess. Which promises are wholly spiritual, wherein Calvin agrees, comments on v28.

 

[greenbaggins]

As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.


Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.

As far as the promised/absent issue, I am not sure to what you are referring. But I would agree that salvation is always present. But where we would disagree is that while all justified are in the CoG, we are disagreeing as to when the CoG was active in the saving. Abraham and every other elect OT saint was a part of the CoG, but they only participate in the CoG in a retroactive sense, namely they believe in the promises revealing a CoG, and the benefits of the CoG are retroactively assigned to them prior to it being instituted by Jesus in the NC. I know I have repeated myself, so I'm not sure what you are driving at w/ Rom. 4. In the same way that justification by faith and union with Christ happened to Abraham before the incarnation and cross-work of Jesus, yet it applied to him retroactively, we would use the same logic for the CoG.

I feel like I am missing you objection. I'm sure it is me, not you. Apologies if I am not answering your objection.

I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4. The point of the contrast is between "under the law/slavery" (verse 21,23) and "freedom" (verse 26). How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17? Even circumcision in Genesis 17 is not associated with slavery, but with promise. If Paul had wanted to contrast Genesis 15 with Genesis 17, then bringing in "Sinai" (THE mountain associated with the Mosaic covenant) would be just about the most unclear way of doing so imaginable. Sinai is simply not associated with Abraham. Just bringing in Hagar does not prove that Sinai now refers to an Abrahamic covenant. In what sense, then, would they be "under the law?" Under the law has to refer to Torah in some sense, which was not given during the time of Abraham. It seems to me that the only viable interpretations of Galatians 4 are that 1. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants simpliciter; or 2. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic with a distortion of the Mosaic covenant.

As to the land, what I mean is that the promise of land is a gradually unfolding promise that has many iterations and crescendos until it is fulfilled finally in the new heavens and new earth. I don't think we can limit it to Joshua and Solomon. The as yet unfulfilled promises of the prophets would seem to prove that.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is what I found.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-about-galatians-law-and-gospel-are-opposed/

 

[brandonadams]

There is quite a significant amount of misunderstanding going on in this discussion. Please allow me an attempt to clarify (so we can discuss actual disagreement, rather than misunderstood disagreement).

First, with regards to the New Covenant being efficacious prior to its formal inauguration as a covenant in the blood of Christ, please consider what Berkhof says:

1. The first revelation of the covenant. The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant. The revelation of such an establishment could only follow after the covenant idea had been developed in history. At the same time Gen. 3:15 certainly contains a revelation of the essence of the covenant…

Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church.

Excerpt From: Louis Berkhof. “Systematic Theology.” iBooks.

Berkhof believes that prior to the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace, the elect were still saved by the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism believes the same thing. We simply argue that the New Covenant, rather than the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace. OT saints received the grace of the New Covenant prior to its establishment in the blood of Christ in the same way that they received the grace of the atonement prior to Christ's death. Retroactive may or may not be the best way to describe this. They received the grace in their own day. They did not wait until a future date to receive it. They could receive the benefits of Christ prior to Christ earning them because Christ swore to the Father in the CoR that he would earn them, making it a guarantee. We believe that the New Covenant is union with Christ. So all we are talking about is receiving Christ's benefits through union with Christ prior to his life and death. That presents no greater difficulty for us than it does for anyone else.

Second,

I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4... How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17?

I may have missed it, but no one is arguing that there were two Abrahamic covenants. No one has argued that Genesis 15 and 17 represent two different Abrahamic covenants. That is not at all what Tim has said or what I would say or what 1689 Federalism says. When we speak of the duality of the Abrahamic Covenant, we very simply mean that God made different promises to Abraham that concern different things. I believe that Augustine states this very simply and helpfully:

Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.”

...the people were settled in the land of promise, so that, in the meantime, the first promise made to Abraham began to be fulfilled about the one nation, that is, the Hebrew, and about the land of Canaan; but not as yet the promise about all nations, and the whole wide world, for that was to be fulfilled, not by the observances of the old law, but by the advent of Christ in the flesh, and by the faith of the gospel.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.16.html

We then look to the fulfillment of those two promises and observe that they correspond to two different covenants: the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. You may not agree with the interpretation, but this is not baptist eisegesis. Again, note Augustine.

There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or “being in bondage.” For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah’s handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, “Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac,” or, as the apostle says, “with the son of the free woman.” In the earthly city, then, we find two things—its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called “vessels of wrath,” the latter “vessels of mercy.” And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham,—Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham’s seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light...

In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God’s law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free,—attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: “They,” says he, “which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Rom 9:8) The children of the flesh, then, belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; whereas the children of the promise belong to the Jerusalem above, the free, the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. (Gal 4:25, 26) Whence we can easily see who they are that appertain to the earthly, and who to the heavenly kingdom. But then the happy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God’s distribution of the times and seasons.

So, we believe that the Mosaic and the New Covenants are both the result of promises that God made to Abraham. Thus there is a duality to the Abrahamic Covenant. I do not agree with Hodge that there were two Abrahamic Covenants, but he was trying to get at the same concept when he said:

It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i.e. of the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/hodge-on-the-visibility-of-the-church/

A similar concept is also seen in Kline's Two-Level Fulfillment argument against Dispensationalism.

 

[Pergamum]

Can we define "formal establishment" of the Covenant of Grace?

In Genesis 3:15 it appears the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" as per the 1689 confession. Most of the Reformed speak of it then being inaugurated (though not yet consummated then), and it was certainly effective for OT believers (because they were saved). All the Reformed say that OT saints were saved due to the benefits of Christ.

So...if it was revealed and effective and its benefits were immediately and OT believers participate in it, it appears there is no harm in saying that it was active or established immediately Post-Fall.


What do you think of R. Scott Clark's quote here? How would you disagree?

The difference between the types and the fulfillment is the difference between inauguration and consummation. A marriage is contracted (engagement) before it is consummated on the wedding day. The inauguration is a real administration of the marriage even though it is not the consummation. To use another analogy, humans develop in stages but they are humans right the way through. An infant is in utero, then post partum, he is in diapers, short pants, jeans, and finally, as grown up, he puts on a suit. These are administrations of the same life. Paul makes this analogy explicitly in Galatians 3.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David were all administrations of the covenant of grace. The Scriptures themselves will not allow us to turn Abraham into a covenant of works.

 

[Pergamum]

Brandon,

Also, I read your post about your disagreements with Coxe about the timing of the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace. My question is: Some of those advocating 1689 Federalism seem to strengthen their argument by pointing out past baptists who believed the same as they do. But in many cases, these older authors (like your disagreement with Coxe, which doesn't seem to be a small and trifling point) do not totally agree with what current writers are saying. Or John Owen is often enlisted when he remained a paedobaptist his entire life.

Do you feel like there is a lot of unity among baptists on this? Or are there many competing views? How monolithic is it?

 

[Pergamum]

Rev Bruce, on an older thread, said:

"So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith."


I think I agree with Bruce. The Cov. of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. It was a promise-to-fulfillment rather than a promise-to-establishment dynamic. The Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore, I believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

 

[Dachaser]

Rev Bruce, on an older thread, said:

"So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith."


I think I agree with Bruce. The Cov. of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. It was a promise-to-fulfillment rather than a promise-to-establishment dynamic. The Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore, I believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

It has been active since the Fall, but was not fulfilled and realized in its full measure until the coming of Jesus, his death/resurrection and thus bringing the New Covenant relationship between God and man.

 

[Timotheos]

I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4. The point of the contrast is between "under the law/slavery" (verse 21,23) and "freedom" (verse 26). How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17? Even circumcision in Genesis 17 is not associated with slavery, but with promise. If Paul had wanted to contrast Genesis 15 with Genesis 17, then bringing in "Sinai" (THE mountain associated with the Mosaic covenant) would be just about the most unclear way of doing so imaginable. Sinai is simply not associated with Abraham. Just bringing in Hagar does not prove that Sinai now refers to an Abrahamic covenant. In what sense, then, would they be "under the law?" Under the law has to refer to Torah in some sense, which was not given during the time of Abraham. It seems to me that the only viable interpretations of Galatians 4 are that 1. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants simpliciter; or 2. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic with a distortion of the Mosaic covenant.

As to the land, what I mean is that the promise of land is a gradually unfolding promise that has many iterations and crescendos until it is fulfilled finally in the new heavens and new earth. I don't think we can limit it to Joshua and Solomon. The as yet unfulfilled promises of the prophets would seem to prove that.

Your very first statement either needs to be nuanced or demonstrates you didn't understand me. I did not say that there were 2 covenants w/ Abraham based on Gal. 4. I'm saying the 2 covenants mentioned in Gal. 4 are organically related to the Abr. Cov.: the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah).

I think where we are parting ways concerning Gal. 4 is whether it is to be read typologically or allegorically. As Contra_Mundum has argued, there was no historical covenant w/ Hagar, therefore Paul couldn't be talking about that in a typological sense. My point is that he is using Hagar as an analogous allegory to the OC. Since the OC treats the physical seed of Abraham (both elect and non-elect), then Hagar is a fitting subject since Ishmael is also part of the physical seed of Abraham. Isaac represents the promised "spiritual" seed (prefer the idea of typological fulfillment rather than spiritual) as Galatians has been arguing in ch. 3. Thus there is an analogous connection with the NC.

 

[Dachaser]

Your very first statement either needs to be nuanced or demonstrates you didn't understand me. I did not say that there were 2 covenants w/ Abraham based on Gal. 4. I'm saying the 2 covenants mentioned in Gal. 4 are organically related to the Abr. Cov.: the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah).

I think where we are parting ways concerning Gal. 4 is whether it is to be read typologically or allegorically. As Contra_Mundum has argued, there was no historical covenant w/ Hagar, therefore Paul couldn't be talking about that in a typological sense. My point is that he is using Hagar as an analogous allegory to the OC. Since the OC treats the physical seed of Abraham (both elect and non-elect), then Hagar is a fitting subject since Ishmael is also part of the physical seed of Abraham. Isaac represents the promised "spiritual" seed (prefer the idea of typological fulfillment rather than spiritual) as Galatians has been arguing in ch. 3. Thus there is an analogous connection with the NC.

This entire area to me seems to be a really big difference between the two camps in the reform traditions of Presbyterian and Baptists, as regarding just how to view the full manifestation of the Covenant of Grace..

 

[brandonadams]

So...if it was revealed and effective and its benefits were immediately and OT believers participate in it, it appears there is no harm in saying that it was active or established immediately Post-Fall.

First, consider Berkhof above. Second, I would recommend reading Owen's lengthy discussion of this point. It will help you understand where we are coming from. Commenting on "established" in Hebrews 8:6, he says

This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration.

2. When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but it was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture, Acts 2:39; Hebrews 6:14-16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomoqesi>a, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament; for it wanted two things thereunto: —

(1.) It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged unto it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Hebrews 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. Wherefore the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant.

(2.) This was wanting, that it was not the spring, rule, and measure of all the worship of the church. This doth belong unto every covenant, properly so called, that God makes with the church, that it be the entire rule of all the worship that God requires of it; which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into covenant with God. But so the covenant of grace was not under the old testament; for God did require of the church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto. But now, under the new testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life, and salvation by Christ, absolutely considered, but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment by the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the church. So that although by “the covenant of grace,” we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by “the new covenant,” we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church.

3. Whilst the church enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the covenant of grace was contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship unto the church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God to bring it under any other covenant, or prescribe unto it what forms of worship he pleased. It was not so, I say, upon these three suppositions: — …

 

[brandonadams]

Do you feel like there is a lot of unity among baptists on this? Or are there many competing views? How monolithic is it?

My disagreement with Coxe, in the scheme of things, is quite minor (though I think still important to consider). There are obviously disagreements between 1689 Federalism and 20th Century RB. Within 1689 Fed there are disagreements on some of the finer points, just as there is disagreement amongst paedobaptists on the details of their covenant theology.

An enumeration of the points of 1689 Federalism (to establish basis of unity on this view) was attempted in this post: http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

I'm doing what I can to help bring unity. That primarily consists of bringing clarity.

 

[brandonadams]

The Cov. of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. It was a promise-to-fulfillment rather than a promise-to-establishment dynamic. The Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore, I believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

I'm afraid everyone is getting caught up on the language. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Covenant of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore we believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic. We all agree with the efficacy of the Covenant of Grace since 3:15. If you want to call that an "establishment", then go ahead, but please don't lose sight of our point. The disagreement is over whether all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace, or whether only the New Covenant is. The disagreement is not over whether the CoG and the Mediator were effective and active in the OT.

http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/

 

[brandonadams]

Regarding Gal 4, the disagreement is also rooted in differing readings of Rom 9:6ff. The two passages are parallels (per Augustine).
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/

 

[Pergamum]

It has been active since the Fall, but was not fulfilled and realized in its full measure until the coming of Jesus, his death/resurrection and thus bringing the New Covenant relationship between God and man.

Yes, I believe that. Don't all the Reformed?

 

[Pergamum]

I'm afraid everyone is getting caught up on the language. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Covenant of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore we believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic. We all agree with the efficacy of the Covenant of Grace since 3:15. If you want to call that an "establishment", then go ahead, but please don't lose sight of our point. The disagreement is over whether all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace, or whether only the New Covenant is. The disagreement is not over whether the CoG and the Mediator were effective and active in the OT.

http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/

This is good to hear that the differences are not that great.

 

[Pergamum]

My disagreement with Coxe, in the scheme of things, is quite minor (though I think still important to consider). There are obviously disagreements between 1689 Federalism and 20th Century RB. Within 1689 Fed there are disagreements on some of the finer points, just as there is disagreement amongst paedobaptists on the details of their covenant theology.

An enumeration of the points of 1689 Federalism (to establish basis of unity on this view) was attempted in this post: http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

I'm doing what I can to help bring unity. That primarily consists of bringing clarity.

Thank you. Your links are helpful.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Therefore we believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic.

I haven't followed every post in every thread on this subject (but this one caught my attention), so bear with me as I try to summarize:

If it is your position that the CoG was active since Gen. 3:15 and if the CoG = ("is") the NC, is it right to conclude that you believe that the NC was coterminous with, but distinct from, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants? And, therefore, that the NC predated the earthly ministry of Christ?