Featured The Covenant of Redemption

Bros. MM, Iconoclast and Reformed, you guys are so spot on.

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk

 

Some further thoughts on this from my blog. I use the term Covenant of Grace there rather than Covenant of Redemption.

References to the Covenant of Grace can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:-

Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Covenant of Grace?

John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and the task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Covenant of Grace?

John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil.

John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Covenant of Grace, of course.

Phil 2:6-8 (author’s translation). ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Covenant of Grace,our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ).

Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Covenant of Grace to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven.

In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is described as the Covenant itself. He is, in His own Person and work, the very substance of it. In Mal 3:1, He is, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant’ because He came to proclaim it and make it known. In Heb 7:22, He is, ‘The Surety of a better covenant.’ Christ came as the representative of fallen Man, being engaged to fulfil the obligations incurred under the Covenant of Works. In Heb 9:15, He is, ‘The Mediator of the New Covenant’ since He has brought about legal satisfaction between God and man so that covenantal blessings are now imparted to those who had previously forfeited them, and He now stands between the two parties, advocating the cause of man to God (1John 2:1 ) and speaking a word of the comfort of God to the weary man (Isaiah 50:4 ). I am indebted to A. W. Pink for much of the forgoing; let us now hear from him direct.

‘But how could Christ sustain such offices a these unless the covenant had been made with him (Gal 3:17 ) and the execution of it had been undertaken by Him (Heb 10:5-7 )? [Heb 13:20] is quite sufficient to establish the fact that an organic connection existed between the Covenant of Grace and the sacrifice of Christ. In response to Christ’s execution of its terms, the Father now says to Him, “By the blood of Thy covenant I have set forth Thy prisoners [those given to Him before the foundation of the world, but in Adam fallen under condemnation] out of the pit wherein is no water” (Zech 9:11 ).’

If anyone wants more, go to www.marprelate.wordpress.com and click on 'Covenants' or 'Covenant Theology.'

 

Don't care what "Pink" or any other "scholar" would use - the two words put together is wrong.

I am showing that by the very accepted definition, by ALL English speaking authorities, the word "covenant" cannot logically be combined with "unconditional." It is an illogical and incorrect pairing, and should never have been allowed to stand from the first one who used the term.

The word "vow," by definition acceptable to ALL English speaking authorities, does fit and does not even need the word "unconditional" alongside as some differential determiner.

But, there are those who are so "comfortable" in using terminology that is not precise, that they would even take the "vow of the marriage" as conditional.