# The eternal covenant



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

*Hebrews 13:20-21*

_Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the *eternal covenant*, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. _

What covenant is this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 28, 2006)

Covenant of redemption



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks, Scott. Why is it not the New Covenant, since it is in the blood of Christ the the New Covenant is wrought?

_And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the *new covenant in My blood*_

Luke 22:20


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 28, 2006)

Marcus,

The Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption are related, but are not distinct as well.

I think that John Owen's comments are helpful on this verse:



> (3.) Hence he is said to do this "œthrough the blood of the everlasting covenant." "œIn the blood," ejn for dia> , which is frequent. And we must see, [1.] What "œcovenant" this is; [2.] What was "œthe blood of this covenant;" [3.] How "œthrough it" the Lord Christ was brought again from the dead. [1.] This covenant may be the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the church, by his undertaking on its behalf.
> 
> The nature hereof hath been fully declared in our Exercitations. But this covenant needed no confirmation or ratification by blood, as consisting only in the eternal counsels of Father and Son. Wherefore it is the covenant of grace, which is a transcript and effect of that covenant of redemption, which is intended. Hereof we have treated at large in our exposition of the 8th and 9th chapters. And this is called "œeverlasting," as in opposition unto the covenant made at Sinai, which, as the apostle proves, was but for a time, and accordingly waxed old, and was removed; so because the effects of it are not temporary benefits, but everlasting mercies, "” grace and glory. [2.] The blood of this covenant is the blood of Christ himself, so called in answer to the blood of the beasts, which was offered and sprinkled in the confirmation of the old covenant; whence it is by Moses called "œthe blood of the covenant," Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:20. See that place, and the exposition. And it is called the blood of the covenant, because, as it was a sacrifice to God, it confirmed the covenant; and as it was to be sprinkled, it procured and communicated all the grace and mercy of the covenant, unto them who are taken into the bond of it. [3.] But the principal inquiry is, how God is said to bring Christ from the dead "œthrough the blood of the covenant," the shedding whereof was the means and the way of his entrance unto death. Now the mind of the Holy Ghost herein will appear in the ensuing considerations. 1st. By the blood of Christ, as it was the blood of the covenant, the whole will of God, as unto what he intended in all the institutions and sacrifices of the law, was accomplished and fulfilled. See chap. 10:5-9. And hereby an end was put unto the old covenant, with all its services and promises. 2dly. Hereby was atonement made for sin, the church was sanctified or dedicated to God, the law was fulfilled, the threatenings of death executed, eternal redemption obtained, the promises of the new covenant confirmed, and by one offering they who were sanctified are perfected for ever. 3dly. Hereon not only way was made for the dispensation of grace, but all grace, mercy, peace, and glory, were purchased for the church, and in the purpose of God were necessarily to ensue. Now the head and well-spring of the whole dispensation of grace, lies in the bringing of Christ again from the dead. That is the beginning of all grace to the church; the greatest and first instance of it, and the cause of all that doth ensue. The whole dispensation of grace, I say, began in, and depends on, the resurrection of Christ from the dead; which could not have been, had not the things before mentioned been effected and accomplished by the blood of the covenant.



If you have not done much research on Covenant Theology, I would recommend reading some articles from the Covenant Theology sections of A Puritan's Mind and R. Scott Clark's Homepage. There are materials on both sites that will help with the similarities and differences between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption. For a more comprehensive treatment, Witsius's _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_ is the standard work on the subject.


----------



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks, Jeff. But why not call it the New Covenant?


----------



## kceaster (Mar 28, 2006)

*Marcos...*

Not to speak for Jeff, but this might be helpful. When was the Lamb slain? His blood is in the New Covenant, but it is also in the Old Covenant. The wine or the cup _signifies_ His blood in the New Covenant. But the blood of animals signified His blood in the Old. His blood speaks better things than that of Abel, again, the blood of an animal.

Where this all meets is that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. In this, we must see the truth that Christ's blood represents an everlasting covenant, i.e., as it was in the beginning, both now and ever shall be, world without end.

The cup represents the New Covenant, not the blood. The blood is eternal, just as the covenant it provides surety for.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Thanks, Jeff. But why not call it the New Covenant?



Marcos, 

Are you asking why "we" do not call it the New Covenant or why the author of Hebrews does not call it the New Covenant? If the former, I think that we can legitamately call this the New Covenant. I think Owen here makes that point, although not explicitly. He more is interested in categorizing this covenant within the general administration of what is known as the Covenant of Grace.

This Covenant of Grace has several administrations (or dispensations) in the Bible, the last of which is the "New Covenant." 

As the Westminster Confession of Faith says:



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VII
> Of God's Covenant with Man
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel:[9] under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.[12]
> 
> ...



In short, I do think that we can say that the blood spoken of in this passage is also the blood of the New Covenant, and it is spoken of here as eternal, because the final sacrifice of Christ has come. Owen sums up why it is called "eternal" here:



> And this is called "œeverlasting," as in opposition unto the covenant made at Sinai, which, as the apostle proves, was but for a time, and accordingly waxed old, and was removed; so because the effects of it are not temporary benefits, but everlasting mercies, "” grace and glory.



Note the verses in Scripture that say the lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the World etc.


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

*Kevin*



> Not to speak for Jeff, but this might be helpful. When was the Lamb slain? His blood is in the New Covenant, but it is also in the Old Covenant. The wine or the cup signifies His blood in the New Covenant. But the blood of animals signified His blood in the Old. His blood speaks better things than that of Abel, again, the blood of an animal.
> 
> Where this all meets is that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. In this, we must see the truth that Christ's blood represents an everlasting covenant, i.e., as it was in the beginning, both now and ever shall be, world without end.
> 
> The cup represents the New Covenant, not the blood. The blood is eternal, just as the covenant it provides surety for.



Given the typological and prophetic nature of all of redemptive history (Matthew 11:13), and since the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) and that the reality of the New Covenant is in Jesus´ blood (Luke 22:20), there seems to be a good biblical basis to think of the New Covenant as the eternal covenant of Hebrews 13:20-21. So I´m not sure why we need a theological covenant (like Redemption or Grace) to account for redemption taking place throughout the ages when we have one, the New Covenant. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

Jeff, thanks for all the Owen.



> Are you asking why "we" do not call it the New Covenant or why the author of Hebrews does not call it the New Covenant? If the former, I think that we can legitamately call this the New Covenant.



Yeah, "we". I think the Scripture makes the case that the eternal covenant is the New Covenant. I'm thinking of the implications of this on the COR and the COG as i noted in my above post to Kevin.

What do you think?


----------



## kceaster (Mar 29, 2006)

*Marcos...*



> _Originally posted by Peters_Given the typological and prophetic nature of all of redemptive history (Matthew 11:13), and since the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) and that the reality of the New Covenant is in Jesus´ blood (Luke 22:20), there seems to be a good biblical basis to think of the New Covenant as the eternal covenant of Hebrews 13:20-21. So I´m not sure why we need a theological covenant (like Redemption or Grace) to account for redemption taking place throughout the ages when we have one, the New Covenant.
> 
> Thoughts?



The New Covenant is the outworking of the COR in time. You must exert a COR outside of time, otherwise you cannot explain the Lamb and the elect. There is also biblical evidence for the COR. Isa 42:6. When was Christ called?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > Not to speak for Jeff, but this might be helpful. When was the Lamb slain? His blood is in the New Covenant, but it is also in the Old Covenant. The wine or the cup signifies His blood in the New Covenant. But the blood of animals signified His blood in the Old. His blood speaks better things than that of Abel, again, the blood of an animal.
> ...



Marcos,

I will jump in on this comment because it makes me think that there is some confusion as to what is meant by the "Covenant of Grace" and "Covenant of Redemption."

The Covenant of Grace is a general covenant encompassing several administrations throughout biblical history including the "New Covenant." KC is correct in pointing out that this CoG is the outworking of the CoR in time.

If this is true, is it not then proper to call the covenant spoken of in Heb. 13 the CoG? Is it that you are simply trying to refrain from using extra-biblical terminology?


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

> The New Covenant is the outworking of the COR in time. You must exert a COR outside of time, otherwise you cannot explain the Lamb and the elect. There is also biblical evidence for the COR. Isa 42:6. When was Christ called?



Why can't the New Covenant explain the Lamb slain and the elect? Isn't that the point of Hebrews 11:20-21? It's an eternal covenant for our redemption wrought in Christ's blood. Just because we relate to the New Covenant in time doesn't mean that it could not have been established in eternity. 

I'm not sure how Isa 42:6 would conflict with this.

You would say the COR is Christward (eternal) and working form that is the COG which is electward (time), right? But Scriptually the New Covenant seems to be able to account for both aspects. If not, why?

Grace, brother.


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

> I will jump in on this comment because it makes me think that there is some confusion as to what is meant by the "Covenant of Grace" and "Covenant of Redemption."
> 
> The Covenant of Grace is a general covenant encompassing several administrations throughout biblical history including the "New Covenant." KC is correct in pointing out that this CoG is the outworking of the CoR in time.
> 
> If this is true, is it not then proper to call the covenant spoken of in Heb. 13 the CoG? Is it that you are simply trying to refrain from using extra-biblical terminology?



Jeff, i was posting when you posted. PLease come back at me again on anything. 

Thanks


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

> Is it that you are simply trying to refrain from using extra-biblical terminology?



Kind of, but not really. I'm not biblicist and have no problem with theological language. I'm just not seeing why we need it in this instance.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 29, 2006)

*Marcos....*



> _Originally posted by Peters_Why can't the New Covenant explain the Lamb slain and the elect? Isn't that the point of Hebrews 11:20-21? It's an eternal covenant for our redemption wrought in Christ's blood. Just because we relate to the New Covenant in time doesn't mean that it could not have been established in eternity.
> 
> I'm not sure how Isa 42:6 would conflict with this.
> 
> ...



I think the reason I am opposed to it is because of who the COG is made with. It is made with Abraham and his Seed. And Paul explains to us that his Seed is not many, but one, that is, Christ.

This also takes into account the implied covenant made in Gen 3:15. The covenant implied there refers to Christ, not to the elect. And most would agree that this covenant is the COG.

Giving Christ as a covenant to the people would mean that God made a covenant with the people. The time referent (implied) is from eternity past. Therefore, the Isaiah passage more correctly refers to the COR.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peters (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm out the door, but real quick: 

Why do you call the covenant made with Abraham an administration of the COG if it is made with Christ and not the COR? Is that not a bit of a conflation?

Thanks. I will be back later to learn....


----------



## Peters (Apr 3, 2006)

***bump***


----------



## kceaster (Apr 3, 2006)

*Marcos...*



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> I'm out the door, but real quick:
> 
> Why do you call the covenant made with Abraham an administration of the COG if it is made with Christ and not the COR? Is that not a bit of a conflation?
> ...



You bring up an excellent point. I will do some research on this and get back to you. In the mean time, perhaps someone else wants to interact with this question?

In Christ,

KC


----------

