Geerhardus Vos on the Covenant of Works

With Logos’ release of each translated volume of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics we become the grateful beneficiaries of some of the church’s greatest theological treasures. In his second volume, on Anthropology, Vos taught by way of catechetical method what he deemed to be the important facets of a biblical anthropology. As usual, Vos’ theological precision and genius shine. Here is how he tackled the subject of Federal Theology and the Covenant of Works:

11. Give the principal propositions that constitute the federal theory.

a) Adam by nature was obliged to obey God, without thereby having any right to a reward.

b) God had created him mutable, and he also possessed no right to an immutable state.

c) His natural relationship to God already included that he, if sinning, must be punished by God.

d) All this was a natural relationship in which Adam stood. Now to this natural relationship a covenant was added by God, which contained various positive elements.

e) These positive elements were the following.

1. An element of representation. Adam stood not just for himself but by virtue of a legal ordering of God, for all his posterity.

2. An element of probation with limited duration. While previously or otherwise Adam’s period of testing could have lasted forever with a constant possibility of a sinful choice, so now a fixed period of perseverance would have led to a condition of immutable virtue.

3. An element of reward, ex pacto [by covenant]. By the free ordination of God, Adam received a right to eternal life if he fulfilled the conditions of the covenant of works.

f) Now when it is said that these three elements are positive, that does not mean that within God’s being there was not an inclination to reveal Himself in such unremitting kindness to man. He is the God of the covenant, and it is intrinsic to His being that He wants to be. But man had no right to expect and to demand it; in so far is the covenant of works positive.

g) By assuming the positive character of the covenant of works in this sense, we in no way intend to assert that Adam existed even for a single moment outside of the covenant of works. He was apparently created destined to be under it, and the garden in which he was placed was created to be a stage for his probation. The distinction between natural relationship and the covenant of works is logical and judicial, not temporal. That is, even when the covenant of works has served its purpose, the natural relationship remains in force in all circumstances, and also all the demands that stem from it still apply to man.

h) The organic unity that exists between Adam and his posterity is not the ground but the means for the transmission of Adam’s sin to us. Now it can certainly be said that Adam must have one nature with us if he were to be our covenant head and his sin were to be imputed to us. An angel, for example, could not represent us federally. But, conversely, it does not follow that Adam, because he possesses our nature, now must represent us. The unity of the nature is only a conditio sine qua non. It is in no way the ground that excludes the possibility of the opposite. The actual relationship is such that God, with an eye to the covenant unity for which He intended humanity, also created it as a natural unity. As being reckoned in Christ by election entails that in God’s time one is born again of Christ through the Spirit, so being reckoned in Adam by the covenant of works entails that in God’s time one is born of Adam.

i) The ultimate legal ground for this representation in Adam cannot by specified by us. We only can say that it:

1. Was strictly juridical insofar as it reckoned with persons and not with the nature of man in the abstract.

2. Has an archetypical example in the economy of the divine persons, in which the one person appears representatively for the other.

3. Must be just simply because it is already factual. No other legal norm exists for us than the acts of God. Therefore, it is foolish to ask whether something that God does is right, as if we possessed an independent standard by which we could know that.

4. Runs completely parallel with the representation of the elect in Christ, against which no Protestant Christian can object. If one has an objection to the imputation of sin and no objection to the imputation of righteousness, one thereby betrays that the objections that one advances rest more on self-interest than on a sense of justice. The covenant of grace is nothing other than a covenant of works accomplished in Christ, the fulfillment of which is given to us by grace.

j) One can even go further and assert that in that covenant of works there were several stipulations that must be beneficial for man. As already seen,

1) his probation was temporally limited; 2) it was concentrated in one man; 3) it was made as clear and objective as possible; 4) the reward promised was as glorious and as great as possible. For all these reasons, man cannot do otherwise than accept gratefully the covenant of works in which God placed him.

k) Through the covenant of works it is explained why the sin of our natural ancestors outside of Adam is not imputed to us. Imputation rests on the covenantal relation, and we stand in such a covenantal relation only to Adam and not to others.

l) The covenant of works explains why Christ, though he assumed a human nature, was not under the curse as we are and why He could therefore assume human nature undefiled. The covenant of works was established with human persons in Adam. Because the person of Christ is the person of the Son of God, he was not included in the covenant of works.

m) Adam’s first sin as act is representatively our sin. It is just as if we had sinned in it. God reckons it so according to His justice, and this verdict of God is called the imputation of Adam’s first sin. Imputation thus means “to put something on someone’s account,” whether it is required of him or is to his benefit. It is, however, only the reatus poenae [liability to punishment], not the reatus culpae [liability to guilt] of this first sin that is imputed to us. That reatus culpae is not transmittable. The reatus poenae, on the other hand, is imputed to us in the fullest sense of the word so that by this alone we are already condemned before God. It is a dangerous, and in its consequences far-reaching, error when one teaches that no one is condemned by God other than on the basis of his own inherent depravity and the guilt that is connected with it. Related to this error is the other error that all children (of whatever parents) who die before their use of reason are saved without exception. This goes a step still further than the preceding error, insofar as it denies that original corruption is condemnable, but otherwise is completely on the same line. We must take a stand against this error: something is sin or not sin, guilt or not guilt. If sin is guilt, then it is that fully. Every sin and guilt is in itself worthy of eternal death. (The parallel with Christ would require that we do not yet become fully righteous by Christ’s imputed righteousness but only by our inherent righteousness that enters us based on the first.) Finally, it is illogical to say that I will not perish because of imputed original pollution but only on the basis of inherent original pollution, if the latter is viewed as the necessary result of the former.

n) Original pollution, inherent corruption, was both for Adam and for us a punishment for the first sin. For Adam it appeared immediately, for us it can only appear when our persons come into being. It is not the only but still the principal punishment of sin, and potentially contains eternal death, since it is separation from God of the s???, “flesh.” While on the one hand it must thus be viewed as a penal consequence, on the other hand one can also view it as the basis of guilt. For there is no pollution without guilt. From all this it appears how sin perpetuates itself without end, how one sin flows from the other in order, in its turn, to give life to a third.

o) The federal theory does not deny that smaller groups of humanity, considered apart from the covenantal relation with Adam, are also in many ways in solidarity and are punished for common sins. We hold, however, that this solidarity in smaller groups is limited, does not extend down to all following generations and does not stem from Adam through all preceding generations. Also, it is not a covenantal solidarity but it rests, so far as its legal ground is concerned, on the presence of the covenant of works. God can visit the sin of the parents upon the children, but He does not do that because juridically the children have sinned in their parents as they have in Adam. He can do that because the children have already forfeited all life in Adam, are under the wrath of God, and God is free in the choice of the form in which He wills to bring the punishment of sin upon them. This fact stands on a line identical to the order that God follows in the covenant of grace, where He grants His promises to children of believing parents and generally extends the grace of the covenant. This does not happen because the children are justified in the parents, but because they, too, were personally reckoned in Christ.

12. On what grounds do we accept this theory of a covenant of works?

a) On the general ground that, if all the data are present, it is allowable for us to connect them with each other and to give a suitable name to the connection so constructed. This is the case here. Here is a free covenant alongside the natural relationship. Although it is true that one cannot speak of a formal enacting of a covenant, God had only had to announce the covenant and that Adam was perfect before God guaranteed of itself that He accepted it.

b) All, whatever theory they may follow in this matter, admit that the right to reward, and certainly such a glorious reward, did not proceed from the natural relationship of Adam to God and thus had to have another foundation. However, as soon as one must agree that there was something positive, a special condescension of God, in these matters, he also accepts the covenant of works in principle, although one may still take exception to the designation.

c) The covenant of grace is the implementation of the covenant of works in the surety for us. That the former possesses the marks of a covenant is not subject to any doubt. From this it follows that the latter must also have been a covenant. In fact, Scripture repeatedly sets the old and new covenants in opposition with each other (cf., e.g., Heb 8:8). To be sure, in such places the opposition is not directly between the covenant in Christ and that in Adam but between the new dispensation of the covenant of grace and the old. However, one must bear in mind that the old dispensation of the covenant of grace bore a legal character for Israel as a nation, and therefore in its external form once more kept the covenant of works in view, although the core of what God established with Israel was of course the continuation of the Abrahamic revelation of the covenant of grace.

d) In Hos 6:7 the translation “they have broken the covenant like Adam” seems to deserve preference, despite every objection.1

e) The parallel that is drawn in Rom 5:12–21 between Adam and Christ, in relation to the doctrine of justification developed elsewhere by Paul, cannot be explained other than by the theory of the covenant of works. In justification, this is what was essential for Paul: that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us without our personally contributing something to its acquisition. This applied to Adam immediately gives all the relationships of the covenant of works.

f) All other theories are subject to such objections that the federal theory is to be preferred over them.2

1. See B.B. Warfield’s “Hosea VI.7: Adam or Man?” in Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 1 (USA: P & R, 1970), pp. 116-129. For a summary of Warfield’s position, see Fred Zaspel’s digest of it in The Theology of B.B. Warfield 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:58 pm and is filed under Featured, Headline. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

View the original article here

The Blood of the New Covenant

“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28
Octavius Winslow 1808-1878
The atoning blood of Christ possesses a pardoning efficacy. Through this blood, God, the holy God—the God against whom you have sinned, and whose wrath you justly dread, can pardon all your sins, blot out all your transgressions, and take from you the terror of a guilty conscience.
Oh what news is this! Do you doubt it? We know it is an amazing fact, that God should pardon sin, and that He should pardon it, too, through the blood of His dear Son, yet take His own word as a full confirmation of this stupendous fact, and doubt no more—”The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Oh yes—blessed declaration! it cleanses us from all sin—”all manner of sin.” We ask not how heavy the weight of guilt that rests upon you; we ask not how wide the territory over which your sins have extended; we inquire not how many their number, or how aggravated their nature, or how deep their dye; we meet you, just as you are, with God’s own declaration, “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin.”
Many there are who can testify to this truth. “Such were some of you,” says the apostle, when writing to the Corinthian converts, who had been fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners; “such were some of you, but you are washed.” In what had they washed?—where were they cleansed? They washed in the “fountain opened to the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and uncleanness.”
To this fountain they came, guilty, vile, black as they were, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleansed them from all sin. Mourning soul, look up—the fountain yet is open, and open too for you. Satan will seek to close it—unbelief will seek to close it—yet it is ever running, ever overflowing, ever free. Thousands have plunged in it, and emerged washed, sanctified, and saved.
To this fountain David, and Manasseh, and Saul, and Peter, and Mary Magdalene, and the dying thief, and millions more, came, washed, and were saved; and yet it has lost nothing of its sin-pardoning, sin-cleansing efficacy—sovereign and free as ever! Oh say not that you are too vile, say not that you are too unworthy! You may stand afar from its brink, looking at your unfitness, looking at your poverty, but listen while we declare that, led as you have been by the Holy Spirit to feel your vileness, for just such this precious blood was shed, this costly fountain was opened.
This “blood of the new testament” is peace-speaking blood. It not only procured peace, but when applied by the Holy Spirit to the conscience, it produces peace—it gives peace to the soul. It imparts a sense of reconciliation: it removes all slavish fear of God, all dread of condemnation, and enables the soul to look up to God, not as “a consuming fire,” but as a reconciled God—a God in covenant.
Precious peace-speaking blood, flowing from the “Prince of Peace!” Applied to your heart, penitent reader, riven asunder as it may be with godly sorrow, it shall be as a balm to the wound. Sprinkled on your conscience, burdened as it is with a sense of guilt, you shall have “beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”
It is through simply believing that the blood of Christ thus seals pardon and peace upon the conscience. Do not forget this. “Only believe,” is all that is required; and this faith is the free gift of God. And what is faith? “It is looking unto Jesus;” it is simply going out of yourself, and taking up your rest in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ—this is faith. Christ has said, that “He saves to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him;” that He died for sinners, and that He saves sinners as sinners: the Holy Spirit working faith in the heart, lifting the eye off the wound, and fixing it on the Lamb of God, pardon and peace flow like a river in the soul.
Oh, stay not then from the gospel-feast, because you are poor, penniless, and unworthy. See the provision, how full! see the invitation, how free! see the guests—the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind! Come then to Jesus just as you are. We stake our all on the assertion, that He will welcome you, that He will save you.
There is too much efficacy in His blood, too much compassion in His heart for poor sinners, to reject you, suing at His feet for mercy. Then look up, believer, and you shall be saved; and all heaven will resound with hallelujahs over a sinner saved by grace!
The Octavius Winslow Archive

Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.

Rev. 1:5b

Basics of the Reformed Faith: Jesus Christ the Covenant Mediator

Basics of the Reformed Faith: Jesus Christ the Covenant Mediator

Christians often speak of important doctrines in the abstract. People speculate about election and predestination, the extent of the atonement, and so on, without making any connection between these doctrines and the person and work of Jesus Christ. But the Bible does not allow us to do this. If we follow the biblical pattern and language, we cannot even mention the subject of election, without at the same time mentioning that we are chosen from before the foundation of the world in the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself chosen by the Father to be the redeemer of the world (John 17:1 ff.). The seed of the woman (cf. Genesis 3:15) is Jesus of Nazareth, who has redeemed us through his saving work. This is why the eternal son of God became incarnate–to save his people from their sins. And this brings us back to the covenant of grace, and its mediator, Jesus Christ.

It is important to carefully consider the fact that the covenant of grace has a personal mediator–Jesus Christ–who is revealed to us in the types and shadows of the Old Testament through Moses’ office as mediator of that covenant God makes with Israel at Mount Sinai, as well as through the kingship of David and his rule over Israel, and even through the sacrifices for sin offered to God by the priests of Israel. All of these Old Testament events foreshadow the coming of God in human flesh. This is why whenever we speak about election and covenant, we must focus upon the word made flesh. Election, covenant, and incarnation are inseparable, and can only be explained and understood in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is “God with us.” This same Jesus is also the mediator of the covenant of grace which progressively unfolds through the pages of the Old Testament, and is fulfilled in the New.

As the promise of redemption begins to unfold, it is clear that God’s promises will be fulfilled in a single person, that one who is the seed of the woman, who will be Israel’s ultimate prophet, priest, and king, and who will also serve as the one mediator between God and man (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5). This one person and mediator of the covenant will be truly human, and yet truly God. He will have two distinct natures, yet he remains one person.

The two natures of Jesus Christ points us to the lengths to which a gracious God will go to save us from our sins. Given the fact of human sin, there is no possible way for men and women to be delivered from that sin apart from the incarnation of our Lord. Since it is the eternal Son of God, the Word, who became flesh, we must deal with the two natures of Christ and the way in which they are related in one person–Jesus. Since it was human nature which sinned, it was absolutely necessary for God to come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ so that someone truly human might do what is necessary to save us. The debt we owe to God must be paid by one of Adam’s race. And then the punishment involved in the curse (death) requires the ability to suffer in both body and soul. For such a penalty to be paid, the eternal Son of God must become flesh.

And yet, at the same time, if we are to be redeemed from our sin, the redeemer must himself be without the guilt of sin so that he could in fact make a sacrifice for sins on behalf of those whom he came to save which satisfies the holy justice of God. A sinful man with a sinful nature is not fit to save other sinners. This is why Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that he was free from the guilt of Adam’s sin. This is also why Jesus subjected himself to the law of God (Galatians 4:4-6), to earn a justifying righteousness for his people through his own perfect obedience. This is why Paul calls Jesus the second Adam (cf. Romans 5:12-19). Jesus does not give into temptation like Adam did. He obeys all of God’s commands, unlike Adam. Jesus earns the crown of life which Adam failed to do. Jesus did all of those things, perfectly, and he did them as someone who was truly human. This is why Jesus is a better mediator than Moses, with a covenant much better than the one God made with Israel at Sinai.

Yet no human sacrifice can pay the infinite debt we owe to the holy God. The sacrifice for our sins must be made by someone whose death can actually pay the debt. Then, there is the fact that no human can apply their sacrifice or obedience to another so as to pronounce forgiveness. Only God can apply the fruits of Jesus’ redemptive work to others under the terms of a covenant of grace, which he alone can establish on his oath. This is why Jesus must also be fully God.

Since Jesus is truly man, he truly redeems human nature–which he took with him when he ascended into heaven after his resurrection. Not only do we have hope that the Son of God will redeem our souls, the two natures united in one person also means that God will redeem our bodies as well. Jesus not only has paid for our sins, and provides for us a perfect righteousness, presently he is in heaven in a body of glorified flesh–a body in which he will return to raise the dead, judge the world and make all things new. Because our Lord has redeemed human flesh, we are certain that our flesh will likewise be transformed so that we might live with him forever and ever.

This is why Jesus Christ must be true God and true man, yet one person who is the mediator of the covenant of grace. Jesus came to save us from our sins and to earn a perfect righteousness by perfectly obeying the law of God. But the Word also became flesh to redeem fallen human nature–and this required him to become like us in every way, yet without sin. When we speak of being saved–we mean much more than the salvation of our souls. We mean the redemption of our whole person–body and soul. This is why he is true God and true man, and the mediator of a better covenant.