Westminster Larger Catechism # 33
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q33 Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
Answer: The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but
the administration of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.
References: 2 Cor. 3:6-7,21-22
Here I beg to differ a bit with what many consider "traditional" Reformed
theology, though I feel that my view of the covenant is more in line with this work of the
Divines. As can be seen in this presentation of the Larger Catechism, the Divines do not
mention a covenant of works, but deal with the covenant of grace immediately after taking
up the issue of the fall and sin. Some are careful to establish the covenant of works made
with Adam, that covenant being subservient to or even replaced later by the covenant of
grace. I do not think this can be with God. Again in His perfection and as a sovereign,
God cannot change. To set aside the covenant of works would mean God had changed how he
dealt with man. Remember the Law will not come for several centuries and then only after
after the destruction of the world for universal breaking of the covenant. I choose to
consider it all one covenant, progressively revealed. The Divines in this document choose
to deal with the differences of one covenant of grace with administrations of the covenant
being different. Some chose the term dispensations, which I think needs to be avoided for
the sake of clarity, the term administered being the better choice of wording. Note the
Divines don’t deny the covenant of works here, they just don’t deal with it as a
separate issue. The covenant of works is clearly implied by definition in God’s
dealing with Adam. It is a big jump from Adam to the law, even with stops along the way
with Noah and later the Patriarchs. If we have a covenant of works (which I do not deny --
read on) then it had to exist from Adam until the first coming of Christ. This period
would have included obedience to the law as a works based covenant also. Not that works
would have ever worked salvation, but rather were always intended to reveal God’s
holiness to man, and assist man in receiving by faith the promise of the Messiah, which we
find mentioned in the very beginning of the story of God’s creation where in
pronouncing the curse upon Satan, God holds up the seed of woman as a promised savior to
come. It is belief (faith) in this promise, that has wrought salvation from the beginning.
Thus I don’t differ in the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, but rather
see it all of God’s grace (singular by intent, I deny special and common grace, but
that is for another place) in that God freely entered into the first covenant in the
garden and has continually renewed and revealed this covenant throughout history as the
terms of the covenant were kept or broken until the day the covenant was fully revealed in
the accepted work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament brings the full light of God in
Christ to view, so that man is more inexcusable than ever before, because God has been
made manifest to all in Christ. The "days man" of Job being fully revealed,
Christ now serves as the mediator of this covenant until the day of the Lord does come. It
is just as true that Christ was mediator also in the Old Testament, though in shadow and
figure, this too has not changed. The immutability of God is extremely important, and we
must use care when dealing with areas where it "appears" God has changed
something. If change is there, it must be in our understanding or a condescension on the
part of God, that really isn’t change, except in how it is perceived by man. God at
times appears to condescend to man in this way, for example, the Scriptures use words that
translate into English as repent, though all would readily admit God could not possibly
"repent" of anything and remain God. So my prayer is that the reader will
prayerfully seek out the Word of God, not tossing aside this idea of one continuing
covenant because of the lack of articulation on the part of the author.
I would go so far as to submit that in this sense even the covenant as it exists today
contains elements of a works covenant, and it is these intermingling of thoughts that have
given birth through the centuries to errors that promote Dispensationalism, Arminianism,
and various and sundry other wrong views. Did Adam go to heaven? Election would say yes! I
don’t think we have Scriptural support to advocate the final resting place of Adam in
eternity, but that he was of God’s "human" family is clear, for God walked
and talked with him. Abraham is a clearer example for here we find Scriptural support that
indeed he is in heaven. Moses? Again Scripture says yes, for we see Moses speaking with
Christ on the Mount in the New Testament. My point being that these Old Testament saints
did not keep the covenant any more than any of us do today. They paid a price for breaking
the covenant (sin), but it was not eternal condemnation because they were in the covenant.
Mankind never has and never will keep the covenant because of the fall and the sin nature
that is in the flesh. I submit that the only man apart from Christ who could have kept the
covenant was Adam who did not. Except being born without the sinful nature of the flesh
neither could have Christ. More on this "being in the covenant" as we develop
this line of thought throughout the next few questions dealing with the covenant.
The Children’s Catechism asks "What is a covenant?" to which the answer
"A covenant is an agreement between two or more people." is offered as the
correct response. We must realize that this agreement isn’t as mutual as we would
like to think for it to be the rule and effective. As such we see asymmetrical covenants
all around us, perhaps best illustrated with the family. A child is expected to obey their
parents and keep the rules, whether they agree with the rules or not. Violating these
rules (law) brings punishment, but not banishment from the family. A son remains a son
despite all that he does, and though he perform such a foul act as to forfeit his life, he
is still the son of his parents. In the election then, God’s chosen are His despite
what they do or do not do, and as stated in the New Testament, can in no way be cast out.
Thus we must maintain the doctrine of election as we develop the theology of the covenant,
for it was made with Christ, for the benefit of the elect (God’s children by
adoption). We also see this asymmetrical covenant idea with a covenant being in place
between governments and the citizens there of, between employers and their employees, and
other places in the world we live in. Thus the idea of a covenant being put in place by a
superior, without the full consent of the subordinate is firmly established. It is in this
sense of the covenant that Christ could say that those who love Him, who are His true
disciples, will obey His commandments. Just as children appreciate and obey parents,
citizens government, etc., etc., the elect realize that the covenant is for their own
good, and "voluntarily" enter into the agreement, though originally they did not
make the agreement as the answer in the Children’s Catechism would indicate on the
surface.
I see then one covenant from beginning to end, understood and administered differently
by man, but one and the same in structure and purpose by God throughout history. All of
the progressive revelation thereof not changing, but defining how man is to obey this
covenant. The covenant of grace had its beginning in the creation, and has been shown to
us in this way that we might understand the responsibility of the created, to obey the
Creator, that we might be holy for He whom we serve is Holy. Just as small children obey
their parents first out of fear, so are new spiritual beings obedient. As children grow
they do come to a point in life where they obey parents because they realize this is best
for them and all concerned, so God’s spiritual children more readily and eagerly obey
Him as they mature and learn of Him; until the day that Paul’s words in Romans make
sense, and beyond the present circumstance and human knowledge, the child of God can know
beyond human doubt, by faith, "all things work for good for those that love
God." Apart from this revelation and spiritual growth, this quote from Scripture is
the silliest thing ever spoken in the battles of life. The day will come when all of
God’s chosen along with Job can without doubt declare, "though He slay me, I
will praise Him." Without a covenant and a mediator thereof, man could not remain in
the presence of God long enough to learn of Him and desire to be included in the covenant.
The covenant then becomes a necessity for God’s dealing with His created children.
To end this question: The covenant of grace has not always been as completely revealed,
and thus has been understood differently by mankind in different ages; but it is one and
the same covenant. "The just live by faith" is a theme of both Old and New
Testaments, and the key to understanding the covenant of grace, offered by God for the
benefit of the elect from the foundation of the world.
TULIP: The covenant being a necessity because of the sinful nature of mankind, can only
be applied by grace and unconditionally because the sinful nature will not submit, even to
God, being rendered irresistible of necessity to subdue the nature of the created, and
effective only to those whom God chooses to give the Spirit of regeneration through the
gift of faith by grace, and finally all held in place by the sovereignty of God who cannot
change, and thus having adopted a child, can in no way cast him out. Once more we find the
five petals are not only present, but cannot be broken apart and applied piecemeal.
Dr. Chuck Baynard -- January 1998
Observer Home Page
1st EPC Home Page
