by Garrett Glende

A moment of honesty here: these articles are not always easy to write. I’m not seminary trained and I’m only twenty-two years old. I don’t have every aspect of doctrine settled in my mind at this point in my Christian life, and I don’t expect this to be coming very soon. Up until now, following along with Grudem’s book has been fairly straightforward, as most of the chapters have dealt with topics that are generally undisputed among evangelicals. However, there have been a few times where I’ve read something that Grudem wrote and disagreed with it to some degree. The first thing I do when this happens is question myself – who am I to know better than one of the premier theologians of our day? Sometimes I’m fairly confident in my assertions, other times I really don’t know what to think at all. This makes it difficult to have to sit down and write an article with confidence, knowing that there is so much more out there for me to think through and develop in my mind. As you read these articles, know that what’s here is only the tip of the iceberg. We will never exhaust the full knowledge of an infinite God. I encourage everyone to grab your Bible’s and get into the Word itself. Read books. Read more books. There are too many great resources out there to just let them all collect dust while we sit at home and watch people playing pretend on TV. Anyway, the reason I bring this all up is because I’ve encountered this again this week. The topic is one that I still don’t have a firm grasp on, but the knowledge I have gained has also lead me to disagree with Mr. Grudem (something that is a little scary for me to do). Proceed with discernment and seek the truth. It does matter.

The issue at hand is the nature of God’s covenants with man. Grudem proposes a system of viewing Scripture, and all history, through the lens of these different covenants which together form the basis for the aptly named Covenant Theology. This doctrinal stance is widely held in Presbyterian and Reformed denominations and views Scripture in light of three (or sometimes two) covenants: the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. I’ll first outline how Grudem defines these and then offer a brief response.

The Covenant of Works

Provided Grudem’s definition of a covenant as “an unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of the relationship,” he describes this “covenant of works” as one that God made with Adam in the garden before the fall. Evidence for this is taken from the idea that God initiated a promise to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 when He commanded him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for that would bring about death. Although the word is not explicitly mentioned, Grudem argues that there is indeed a covenant in effect because of the binding provisions and promise of blessing (implicit) or consequence of disobedience. Grudem says that there are aspects of this covenant still alive today. For instance, if it were possible to live in perfect obedience to God’s law, then we would inherit the blessings promised in the covenant. Also, “the punishment for this covenant of works is still in effect, for ‘the wages of sin is death’” (Rom. 6:23). However, there are ways in which this covenant is not applicable, as we are not expected to obey the command not to eat of the tree and are completely incapable of righteousness due to our sinful natures.

The Covenant of Redemption

This covenant is slightly different from the others in that it is not one that was made between God and man, but rather within the members of the Trinity. “It is an agreement among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in which the Son agreed to become man, be our representative, obey the demands of the covenant of works on our behalf, and pay the penalty for sin, which we deserved.” Grudem notes that this is classified as a covenant because it is something that has specific parties involved as well as promises and conditions. Although different from the covenants made with man, it still can be thought of as such because of these reasons.

The Covenant of Grace

Grudem writes that the covenant of grace was initiated after the fall because God saw it necessary to “establish another means, one by which man could be saved.” From this point on, God would deal with His people according to this plan. Christ would be the one to mediate the covenant, conditioned on the faith of man as a requirement to take part in the promised blessings of God. These blessings were mainly found in the reality of eternal life with the Creator and the forgiveness of sin. A main passage cited by covenant theologians is Jeremiah 31 where God says that He will “make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke…I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Grudem argues that this promise made to Israel is ultimately fulfilled in the church, God’s people.

Concerns

Again, it’s hard for me to disagree, but there are a few things that I must point out. The biggest issue that I see in covenant theology is the necessity to use different hermeneutics for different portions of Scripture. While many covenant theologians use a grammatical-historical approach to the majority of God’s word, they switch to a more allegorical method when confronted with these types of passages. It forces them to spiritualize promises that were explicitly made to be fulfilled in a literal sense. For example, there is no reason to believe that the above passage from Jeremiah is meant to be read as applied to anyone else but the Jews. God specifically states that the new covenant is for “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” Later on in chapter 32, God promises that this covenant will include the restoration of their original land that they had been driven out of. If the scattering of Israel was literal, should not the restoration be as well?

Covenant theology insists that the future blessings promised to Israel are now fulfilled in the church. Many believe that there was a church during the Old Testament, but it was simply spiritual in nature. Again, this premise requires an inconsistent hermeneutic. Besides, Jesus is clear in Matthew 16:18 that the building of the church is something that is to take place in the future. This theology attacks the very faithfulness of God to His people and creates unnecessary spiritualizing of otherwise unambiguous texts.

Application

This whole debate aside, it is clear that God does establish covenants with man. The fact that God does this alone, on His own initiative should cause us to fall to our knees and submit to Him. Who are we that God should be mindful of us? How could He even want to be in a relationship with sinful man? Through the study of God’s covenants the one thing that jumps out over and over is the complete faithfulness of God to His word. When He says something, He means it. What great comfort we can take in this wonderful aspect of God’s character. We don’t have to worry over the state of our salvation because God has promised that those who trust in the work of the Son alone shall be saved forever. This is a truth that never changes. God is faithful to this promise. He is faithful to bless “all the families of the earth” as promised in the Abrahamic covenant through the substitutionary death of His Son. Praise God that He is faithful to His word!