WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM # 36
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q36. Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?
Answer: The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being
the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of
time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct
natures, and one person, forever.
References: 1 Tim. 2:5; John 1:1,14; John 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:35; Rom.
9:5; Col. 2:9; Heb. 7:24-25.
If we will look again at question 31 and with whom the covenant was made, then add this
question I do not think we can have the idea that there is more than one covenant, nor
that it has ever differed in its administration. With much prayer I offer the following
statement concerning the covenant of grace:
God in counsel with Himself before the foundation of the earth established a covenant
with His Son whereby the elect would be included in this covenant to their salvation and
all others would be included as covenant breakers unto condemnation. This covenant was
established with Adam with only the visible means being that of obedience to the command
of God, not to eat of the tree of knowledge. A mediator was not needed at this point in
history because of the special relation that Adam had in communion with God pre-fall. When
Adam broke the covenant, God revealed the mediator of the covenant in the promise of a
Savior (seed of woman Gen. 3:15). Nothing has changed in the counsel of God, it is
revealed in the fullness of time, in this case at the failure of Adam to keep the
covenant. This pre-fall covenant has been labeled a covenant of works because the only
condition revealed was that Adam obey God, and that eternal life was also offered in the
tree of life.
The covenants that follow are all intermediate points as such, each revealing more of
God’s intentions toward man and pointing to the promised Savior of Genesis 3:15. The
element of grace being more and more evident, though until the first coming of Christ this
was by promise and received by faith, the outworking of this faith being to obey God.
However post-fall, breaking the covenant does not mean instant condemnation. Witness the
many sins of David, a "man after God’s own heart." The keeping of the
covenant now being laid to the second Adam, though He has not been made manifest yet, He
is most clearly revealed in the nature of the creation, and the special revelation of God.
We see a more definitive revelation of the covenant at Sinai with the giving of the
law. A law whereby Scripture clearly states none have ever been saved. However in the
giving of the law, specific sacraments and other commands were given that God’s
people were to endeavor to keep and whereby God established a means of atonement in the
sacrificial system. A system that pointed to Jesus Christ as surely and clearly as all
other Scriptures had before Sinai. Though salvation was not of the keeping of the law,
therefore works, the covenant in the whole of the Old Testament can be seen to be one
where works were included to receive the blessings of the covenant. With the coming of
Christ the fullness of the covenant was revealed and the Old Testament ceremonies
fulfilled, and explained. So even here we do not see a change in the administration of the
covenant. We do see yet another change in how the elect are to remember the covenant and
the requirement of obedience is still in place. Again not of works but grace. The actual
administration having been since the fall by faith. The former ways being the teacher of
what God requires and to make manifest the sin that deserves condemnation. We find no
difference then in the New Testament covenant whereby by grace God entered into a covenant
in behalf of His elect with Jesus Christ, and by grace giving the gift of faith that will
work obedience in the elect. Thus the covenant though revealed progressively, has not
changed in purpose nor administration since the fall. The division pre-fall and post-fall
I don’t see as a necessity, though I have no problem with this division as long as we
don’t have a change in how God deals with mankind. Genesis 3:15 adds a mediator
(reveals is perhaps a better choice of words) but doesn’t change administration by
faith that works obedience in the created, a gift of God lest any should glory.
I simply don’t see the paradigm shift in administration most theologians teach. I
find the unity (immutability) of God more consistently portrayed in a progressive
revelation, thus the understanding of man in the above example.
Some see this as restricting the freedom of God, an issue we have already covered.
Others see this as not allowing the establishment of a New Testament in Christ. Not true
in that Adam was the first "testator" and Christ the last. Christ fulfilled the
law whereas Adam failed to keep the law. The bias between Old and New exists because of
our finite minds. The "New" being further revelation not a different covenant
nor administration of the old. Even Christ’s death is seen as the ultimate
fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. In Christ the type and shadow of the
Old Testament were given substance. Nothing new, but the revealing of God’s intent
from the beginning. This can be likened in a way to Christ’s explanation of Moses
allowing for divorce in the Old Testament law. This was never God’s intent, but Moses
allowed (under divine inspiration) for divorce because the people wouldn’t have
accepted the fullness of God’s intent at that point in history. Therefore we read
that in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) God sent His Son. Was not what Moses wrote down
Scripture? Christ said it was! God set in place the covenant, and then brought forth the
revelation of it throughout history, revealing the next stage (not change) in the fullness
of time.
The rest of this question introduces the Son of God in the flesh, as the eternal
mediator of the covenant, and has more to do with this nature of the God/man, Jesus Christ
than the covenant proper. This is a lead in to the next series of questions which will
deal with the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This will be dealt with at
length in that section.
We can then see that all of the rest of our theology proper must fit within the concept
of the covenant. This is "covenant theology." In the covenant we also see the
fullness of the TULIP. Man having failed and unable to save himself by the mere grace of
God is provided a Savior. This Savior will fully meet the price (conditions) for the
fulfillment of God’s covenant, but it will not be effective for all in that the
agreement was with the Son (mediator) for the elect. Once more because of the nature of
the creature (sin) the covenant is asymmetrical and for those chosen it is irresistible.
Because the fulfillment of the covenant has never depended on the actions of the elect,
but the grace and sovereignty of God, it is totally effective for the elect, and nothing
can set aside this election. Note that the addition of the covenant did not change the
TULIP, but rather defines it, and makes the how and why clearer. Thus planted in the soil
of God’s sovereignty, the covenant then becomes the fertilizer which brings it to the
fullness of its maturity, revealing its beauty to all of God’s elect.
Dr. chuck Baynard January 1998
LC Index
Observer Home Page
1st EPC Home Page
