# Order of Salvation & Covenant of Grace



## Peters (Jul 23, 2005)

Please explain how you think the Covenant of Grace relates to the Order of Salvation?


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 23, 2005)

In contrast to those who don't hold to Covenant theology, and are of a Dispensational background? 

Because in Covenant Theology you have the Covenant of Grace, but in Dispensational Theology you have the Age of Grace.


----------



## Peters (Jul 23, 2005)

Just in Covevant Theology.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 23, 2005)

I may be wrong in this but I'll take a stab at it.

The Covenant of Grace as found in Covenant Theology preserves that the Order of Salvation stays the same for all the elect through out all of history.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 23, 2005)

I'm a bit confused at the main thrust of the question. Marcos, what are you getting at? Do you see some kind of conflict or something with the ordo salutis and covenant theology? I'm not sure what conflict you might be sensing, but from my vantage point the covenant of grace is perfectly in line with /underlies the ordo salutis. God's outworking of salvation by means of the covenant of grace takes place (and has always taken place) by the ordo salutis. Electing, calling, justifying, sanctifying, glorifying are all parts of the order - and each takes place in the broad context of the covenant of grace. 

So the short way of putting this is... what's the issue you're having, or the point in particular that you want to discuss in light of the covenant of grace?

Todd


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 23, 2005)

The Covenant of Grace _includes _ the outworkings of the ordus salutus IN TIME. Another way of saying it would be that the order of salvation is a part of the COG, but the COG is more than the ordus, it also includes Christ's death etc. that happened 2000 years ago.

WCF
7:3 Man, by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second (Gen_3:15; Isa_42:6; Rom_3:20, Rom_3:21; Rom_8:3; Gal_3:21), commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved (Mar_16:15, Mar_16:16; Joh_3:16; Rom_10:6, Rom_10:9; Gal_3:11), and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe (Eze_36:26, Eze_36:27; Joh_6:44, Joh_6:45).


----------



## Scott (Jul 25, 2005)

Marcos: The Covenant of Grace is something that has always existed. It is an agreement among the three members of the Trinity. The order of salvation, if you mean the ordo salutis, is something that happens in history.


----------



## Peters (Jul 25, 2005)

Thanks, Scott. So how do you think they relate to each other? Does the Covenant of Grace bring about the Order of Salvation in a person's life?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Thanks, Scott. So how do you think they relate to each other? Does the Covenant of Grace bring about the Order of Salvation in a person's life?



Hi Marcos -

I think Scott and others may have already answered this question. (although Scott has defined the Covenant of Grace in terms which I would reserve for the Covenant of Redemption - The Covenant of Redemption is that pact among the members of the Godhead to effect salvation through Christ; the Covenant of Grace, at least as I understand it, is made between God and Christ, and in him, the elect. Blending the two isn't uncommon, but I believe they should be kept separate, particularly in this discussion.) 

The Order of Salvation occurs in the life of believers, in time, as they live here on Earth. The Covenant of Grace describes the covenantal relationship between believers and God through Christ, the mediator - the Ordo describes the things that occur in that person's life. I'm not sure you can say "the Covenant of Grace bring about the Order of Salvation"... If you want an initiating point, perhaps you should look to the decree of God, by whom all those who are elect are foreknown and called, etc. 

Todd


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Marcos: The Covenant of Grace is something that has always existed. It is an agreement among the three members of the Trinity. The order of salvation, if you mean the ordo salutis, is something that happens in history.



Scott, not to pick on you or single this out etc., but statements like these don't make sense to me. While the covenant of grace has "always existed," it has only "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. But *everything* has "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. The covenant of grace did not properly "exist" until the fall of mankind. If you are going to say the covenant of grace is eternal, in that it has "always existed," then so has everything else (mankind, mice, flees, the covenant of works, giving birth, death, AIDS, ping-pong, etc.). There is nothing more eternal about the covenant of grace than there is about anything else, in this regard. This is why I don't like the language "eternal" in regard to "existing." The only eternal thing is God. Other things may exist eternally in his mind, but they do not exist eternally in and of themselves. They have a point of beginning in time. Does this make sense? The order of salvation for each individual is just as eternal as the covenant of grace, in that they bother eternally exist in God's mind, but they only exist in time.


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 25, 2005)

Mr. Pedlar and Mr Meyers are correct. few more points - I would add that the actual process represented by the analogy of the Ordo Salutes is not a intended to suggest a "mechanical process". Additionally there is some slight variance within the reformed position that regeneration can precede the effectual call or vis versa. The ordo Salutes is meant to provide a framework for us to conceptualize and discuss Soteriology. 

Mr. Peters, I commend to you John Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied for further study.


----------



## Peters (Jul 26, 2005)

Todd, good points.



> I think Scott and others may have already answered this question. (although Scott has defined the Covenant of Grace in terms which I would reserve for the Covenant of Redemption - The Covenant of Redemption is that pact among the members of the Godhead to effect salvation through Christ; the Covenant of Grace, at least as I understand it, is made between God and Christ, and in him, the elect. Blending the two isn't uncommon, but I believe they should be kept separate, particularly in this discussion.)



I agree that this is a necessary theological distinction that ought to be maintained. 



> The Order of Salvation occurs in the life of believers, in time, as they live here on Earth. The Covenant of Grace describes the covenantal relationship between believers and God through Christ, the mediator - the Ordo describes the things that occur in that person's life. I'm not sure you can say "the Covenant of Grace bring about the Order of Salvation"... If you want an initiating point, perhaps you should look to the decree of God, by whom all those who are elect are foreknown and called, etc.


 

By "œbring about" I mean "œconsequence". Is the reality of the Ordo in the life of the elect sinner a consequence of the Covenant of Grace? I understand that we could possibly make this connection to the Covenant of Redemption, but I really want to think about it specifically with relation to the Covenant of Grace. 

Mr. McManus



> Mr. Peters, I commend to you John Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied for further study.



You know, a good friend of mine recommended this work to me just last week. It´s shocking that I have never got around to it, I know. But let us not talk about what I haven´t read  By the way, Scott, the name "œMcManus" carries some very funny connotations for me. So I´m glad you´re on this board, because there is no way I could see that name and then write a mean post :bigsmile: 




Myers



> Scott, not to pick on you or single this out etc., but statements like these don't make sense to me. While the covenant of grace has "always existed," it has only "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. But *everything* has "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. The covenant of grace did not properly "exist" until the fall of mankind. If you are going to say the covenant of grace is eternal, in that it has "always existed," then so has everything else (mankind, mice, flees, the covenant of works, giving birth, death, AIDS, ping-pong, etc.). There is nothing more eternal about the covenant of grace than there is about anything else, in this regard. This is why I don't like the language "eternal" in regard to "existing." The only eternal thing is God. Other things may exist eternally in his mind, but they do not exist eternally in and of themselves. They have a point of beginning in time. Does this make sense? The order of salvation for each individual is just as eternal as the covenant of grace, in that they bother eternally exist in God's mind, but they only exist in time.



How do you understand the Covenant of Redemption in eternity and time?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Todd, good points.
> 
> 
> ...




I'm really not sure what you're getting at. I don't see the "consequential" relationship you seem to want to put in here. The Ordo isn't really a "consequence" of anything except God's intention to bring those things (calling, justification, sanctification, etc) in the believer's life. 

The Ordo Salutis is the normal means by which God draws a sinner into relationship with Him through the Covenant of Grace. They both, in that sense, are a consequence of God's decree. I don't think it's proper to say that one is the consequent of the other, though the two are inextricably linked. The Ordo Salutis is a series (again as someone has noted, not necessarily sequential or comprehensive) of things that occur in believers' lives in time - they mark the elect child of God, with whom (through Christ) God has relationship via the covenant of Grace. 

You seem to be asking your questions from a perspective of disagreement with the reformed concept of the Covenant of Grace - I'd like to hear what you have to say about the relationship between these two ideas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but otherwise, can you spell out some of your disagreements with the way we link the two?

Todd


----------



## Peters (Jul 26, 2005)

> The Ordo Salutis is the normal means by which God draws a sinner into relationship with Him through the Covenant of Grace. They both, in that sense, are a consequence of God's decree. I don't think it's proper to say that one is the consequent of the other, though the two are inextricably linked. The Ordo Salutis is a series (again as someone has noted, not necessarily sequential or comprehensive) of things that occur in believers' lives in time - they mark the elect child of God, with whom (through Christ) God has relationship via the covenant of Grace.



Yes, this is all I mean. The Ordo happens because there is a Covenant of Grace, a Covenant of Grace that has been made with Christ as the Second Adam. Because this Covenant of Grace has been made, elect sinners will be saved and this reality is manifest in time through an order of events that we call the Order of Salvation. 



> You seem to be asking your questions from a perspective of disagreement with the reformed concept of the Covenant of Grace - I'd like to hear what you have to say about the relationship between these two ideas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but otherwise, can you spell out some of your disagreements with the way we link the two?



Disagree with Reformed concepts? May it never be!  No, I´m just thinking through some covenant issues to do with who is in what covenant and how.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > The Ordo Salutis is the normal means by which God draws a sinner into relationship with Him through the Covenant of Grace. They both, in that sense, are a consequence of God's decree. I don't think it's proper to say that one is the consequent of the other, though the two are inextricably linked. The Ordo Salutis is a series (again as someone has noted, not necessarily sequential or comprehensive) of things that occur in believers' lives in time - they mark the elect child of God, with whom (through Christ) God has relationship via the covenant of Grace.
> ...



Well, I guess my quibble is with your statement that the Ordo happens "because there is a Covenant of Grace". Rather, it seems to me that Scripture teaches that the events described in the Ordo Salutis happen in the life of those united to God through Christ in the Covenant of Grace. I'm not sure the causal language that you're using is the best way of describing the relationship of the two. 



> You seem to be asking your questions from a perspective of disagreement with the reformed concept of the Covenant of Grace - I'd like to hear what you have to say about the relationship between these two ideas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but otherwise, can you spell out some of your disagreements with the way we link the two?



Disagree with Reformed concepts? May it never be! 

[/quote]

Good 

Todd


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

A couple of points. Reformed theology does not recognize something called a "covenant of redemption" that is separate from the Covenant of Grace. 

A second point is that the Covenant of Grace is eternal and has no beginning. This is an actual pact among the members of the Trinity and not just a decree in the mind of God. Note the Shorter Catechism:

Q: Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? 
A: God having, out of his mere good pleasure, *from all eternity*, elected some to everlasting life,1 did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer. 

One of the proof texts typically used to support the eternal nature of the covenant of grace is Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."

Here we have a promise before the the world began (i.e. before the Fall). This is a window in the the covenant of grace. A promise implies a promisor and a promisee. As only the persons of the Trinity existed at this point, we can understand that the promise was among the members.

For a very helpful discussion of the Covenant of Grace see Fisher's Catechism on Shorter Catechism Question 20. Look especially at questions 17 and following of Fisher's catechism. Here is a relevant excerpt on the eternality of the COG:

Q. 28. How are we to conceive of the covenant of grace, in respect of order and being?
A. Although the covenant of grace was the second covenant, in respect of order and manifestation to the world, yet it was first in respect of being, because it was actually made with Christ from eternity, Tit. 1:2.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

"Thanks, Scott. So how do you think they relate to each other? Does the Covenant of Grace bring about the Order of Salvation in a person's life?"

The Covenant of Grace relates to people in time through secondary covenantal administrations. There is and always has been only one Covenant of Grace. This covenant has been differently administered through through various ages. The two largest administrations are the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. So today, this means that the grace from God's COG is administered through the New Covenant. The means of grace of the New Covenant are the Word, prayer, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. So in the most practical sense, the connection between the COG and grace in the life of believers in the institutional church, which has been given these means of grace as gifts.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

*WCF VII. III - VI.:*


> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> ...




*WCF XXV. II - III.:*


> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.
> 
> III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Right on, Gabriel! 

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott]


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> A couple of points. Reformed theology does not recognize something called a "covenant of redemption" that is separate from the Covenant of Grace.



That's odd. A rather august group of Reformed theologians speak of a distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (perhaps you prefer Pactum Salutis?] and the Covenant of Grace - though I can certainly see the two as linked and one-to-one. AA Hodge, for one, in an article on the puritan mind site, 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/HodgeAAGodsCovenant.htm

speaks about this. I'm not trying to put distinctions where they aren't, don't get me wrong - but there is, in Reformed theology, room for distinguishing the two. John Flavel and David Dickson also clearly speak to this issue.

Todd


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

*From the Westminster Sum of Saving Knowledge:*


> 2a) Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, is neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, has revealed in his word a way to save sinners, that is, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of *the covenant of redemption*, made and agreed upon between God the Father and God the Son, in council of the Trinity, before the world began.
> 
> 2b) The sum of the *covenant of redemption* is this: God having freely chosen to life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, to God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, to personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even to the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase to them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading there to, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits of the elect; and that he does by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.
> 
> ...



I don't think the WCF sees the CoG and the CoR as the same covenant. Authorial intent.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Gabriel - That is interesting. The substance of the COR in WSSK is the same as the COG. I wonder if they are synonyms. I have heard the COG referred to as many things, such as the Covenant of Life. The COR is not mentioned in the standards anywhere.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Todd: Thanks for the link. I suppose I should correct my earlier statement to say that I don't recall a reference to the COR in reformed creedal standards (it is not referred to as something distinct in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, for example, although as Gabriel mentioned it appears in another document) or various reformed works on the COG I have reviewed. The quote from Hodge suggests that the COR is simply a dimension of the COG:



> Now, what is commonly called the covenant of grace as distinct from the covenant of redemption is just the human and external side of this eternal covenant of redemption. *Both the covenants are executed in our behalf, both under one name, the covenant of grace.* It is better, however, to distinguish them, and to call the covenant between the Persons of the eternal Godhead, the covenant of redemption, which is eternally transcendent, and which is full of light and love, and life and power, the provisions and scope of whose grace transcend the imaginations of man or the tongues of angels. But the covenant of grace is just the human temporal side, which makes human redemption possible and gives its benefits freely to us.


 
To me it looks like a way to distinguish between two aspects of the larger COG. It sounds to me like we are all talking about the same thing, just different ways of slicing and dicing it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Gabriel - That is interesting. The substance of the COR in WSSK is the same as the COG. I wonder if they are synonyms. I have heard the COG referred to as many things, such as the Covenant of Life. The COR is not mentioned in the standards anywhere.



Agreed, as far as the standards go. However, we're not limited to 
talking about the standards, when a claim is made that says Reformed theology doesn't define a covenant of redemption that is in any way distinct from the covenant of grace. I don't think this is a huge point of contention - but it's just not true that there is no such idea as the covenant of redemption in reformed theology. Several writers, including the WCF authors (or at least the Westminster divines who penned the Sum of Saving Knowledge) seem to make that distinction (though linking the two in a very clear and important way). The CoR has as parties only the Trinity, agreeing to the salvation of the elect. The CoG includes the elect in Christ, unto the end in view of their salvation and God's glorification. I do think it's a valid distinction, and certainly there is a body of Reformed writing on the distinction.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

These questions from the larger catechism may directly address the original question.

Q. 57. What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?
A. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all other benefits of the covenant of grace. 

Q. 58. How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured?
A. We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured, by the application of them unto us, which is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost. 

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

"I don't think this is a huge point of contention - but it's just not true that there is no such idea as the covenant of redemption in reformed theology."

Agreed - I corrected my statement in a later post.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

I think the authorial intent behind the WCF (as displayed in the Catechisms and supporting documents, such as the SoSK) clearly teaches that there are three divine covenants, the CoR, the CoG, and the CoW/L/N, whatever you wish to call it.

God made a plan within the Trinity to redeem His people before the beginning of time for His glory (CoR). He gave us a command of perfect obedience, which we failed, damning us all (CoW). Christ satisfied the demands for this CoW on our behalf (CoG) so that we would be counted along with His perfect obedience before God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think the authorial intent behind the WCF (as displayed in the Catechisms and supporting documents, such as the SoSK) clearly teaches ...



Gee, you mean the WCF, like the Constitution, doesn't mean what we want it to mean?


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Gabriel: The standards indicate that the COG was eternal and was among the members of the Trinity. Still, I really think we are all talking about the same thing, just using different lingo.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Gabriel: The standards indicate that the COG was eternal and was among the members of the Trinity.



Where do you get this?


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

SC20 states its eternality, for example.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> SC20 states its eternality, for example.



I don't see enough there to prove the CoR and the CoG are the same. Not at all. The statement about the CoG almost seems as a separate statement from the part referring to "from eternity." We need more than this.


----------



## Scott (Jul 26, 2005)

Gabriel: As I mentioned, I expect we are focusing on semantics. I think these are just different terms expressing the same ideas. Perhaps sort of like the difference between specifically referring to a contract as a whole or identifying specific amendments to it. Both ways of speaking are right. 

In any event, the standards refer first to the Covenant of Works and secondly the Covenant of Grace, which is expressly identifies as the "second covenant" (eg. LC32). There is no reference to a "third covenant." Beattie in his Presbyterian Standards states this:




> Sometimes the distinction is made by theologians between what is called the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace. According to the former, God enters into covenant with his Son, giving him a people whom he redeems and assuredly saves. According to the latter, God enters into covenant with his people to redeem and save them by his Son, as the Mediator whom he has appointed. In the first case, God and the Son are the parties to the covenant, and the Son is the surety for his people; and in the latter case, God and the elect are the parties, and the Son is the Mediator between them. *The Standards do not distinctly recognize this twofold aspect of the covenant.* They speak of a second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace, according to which God has been pleased to provide for and secure the salvation of the elect. *This distinction may be regarded as a valid one, so long as the idea of two covenants is not entertained. Strictly speaking, there can be only one covenant,* but that covenant may be viewed in the twofold aspect, which this distinction implies. The Scripture terms mediator and surety, as applied to Christ, quite justify this twofold view of the covenant of grace, though the covenant itself is always one and the same.



Anyway, interesting discussion. I had not focused on the idea of three covenants before.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 26, 2005)

This is why I brought up Q&A 30-32 from the WLC with BrightLight (or whatever the s/n was):

Q30: Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A30: God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,[1] into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works;[2] but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace.[3]

1. I Thess. 5:9
2. Gal. 3:10, 12
3. Titus 3:4-7; Gal. 3:21; Rom. 3:20-22

Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[1]

1. Gal. 3:16; Rom. 5:15-21; Isa. 53:10-11

Q32: How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?

A32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[1] and life and salvation by him;[2] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit [3] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[4] with all other saving graces;[5] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[5] as the evidence of the truth of their faith [6] and thankfulness to God,[7] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[8]

1. Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6; John 6:27
2. I John 5:11-12
3. John 1:12; 3:16
4. Prov. 1:23
5. II Cor. 4:13
6. Gal. 5:22-23
7. Ezek. 36:27
8. James 2:18, 22
9. II Cor. 5:14-15
10. Eph. 2:18

The catechism tends to blend the two--covenant of grace and covenant of redemption. And the confession never speaks of a third covenant (covenant of redemption) explicitly.


----------



## Peters (Jul 26, 2005)

Scott



> As I mentioned, I expect we are focusing on semantics. I think these are just different terms expressing the same ideas



I´m not sure, brother. The COR cannot include elect sinners as a party in the covenant, because they are what is promised. The COG, on the other hand, has elect sinners in Christ as a party of the covenant, and the thing promised is eternal life. This seems to be precisely why we must maintain a distinction between the COG and the COR.

Theological Bookmark



> Scott, not to pick on you or single this out etc., but statements like these don't make sense to me. While the covenant of grace has "always existed," it has only "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. But *everything* has "always existed" in the eternal decree and mind of God. The covenant of grace did not properly "exist" until the fall of mankind. If you are going to say the covenant of grace is eternal, in that it has "always existed," then so has everything else (mankind, mice, flees, the covenant of works, giving birth, death, AIDS, ping-pong, etc.). There is nothing more eternal about the covenant of grace than there is about anything else, in this regard. This is why I don't like the language "eternal" in regard to "existing." The only eternal thing is God. Other things may exist eternally in his mind, but they do not exist eternally in and of themselves. They have a point of beginning in time. Does this make sense? The order of salvation for each individual is just as eternal as the covenant of grace, in that they bother eternally exist in God's mind, but they only exist in time.



How do you understand the Covenant of Redemption in eternity and time?


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> How do you understand the Covenant of Redemption in eternity and time?



The covenant of redemption is--by definition--the one "eternal" covenant, which is between the eternal Father and the eternal Son (pre-incarnate Son). It is the archetype for all other covenants. (Picture, if you will, the Vosian "triangle" of type-antitype.) However, the covenant of redemption unfolds in time. This covenant, though, as opposed to the covenant of grace, was made between two parties eternally, whereas the covenant of grace is made between two parties temporally (Triune God and the elect). Yes, the CoG did exist eternally in the mind of God--as did table-tennis, football, and Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat beer--but the covenant was not made with the elect in eternity in that the elect did not exist as persons in order to be a party of the covenant (as opposed to the CoR and the persons of the Trinity).

The CoR is worked out temporally when the eternal Son, at the appointed time, took upon the work of the CoR as the incarnate Son, namely obedience to the Father unto the Mosaic Law (which is a typological covenant of works with the first Adam) as the last Adam for various promised rewards (i.e. annointing of the Spirit, resurrection, glorified body, the throne, a people of his own, etc.). The eternal, intratrinitarian covenant is worked out in time and space.

Does that answer it for you, Marcos?


----------



## Tirian (Jul 26, 2005)

Is there a sense of the CoR being "fulfilled" at the general resurrection?

Matthew


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> Is there a sense of the CoR being "fulfilled" at the general resurrection?
> 
> Matthew



Hmmm... yes, but I would argue that is primarily the fulfillment of the covenant of grace for us. However, there is, I would suppose, the work of Judgment and eternal mediation the Son will carry out, which could be part of of the CoR. I guess one could also say the consumation (general resurrection) is part of the promises of the Father to the Son being fulfilled.


----------



## Peters (Jul 27, 2005)

[quote[The covenant of redemption is--by definition--the one "eternal" covenant, which is between the eternal Father and the eternal Son (pre-incarnate Son).[/quote] 

I take it by "œeternal" you mean something other than its eternal existence in the mind of God. Can you say that the COR has eternally existed externally? 



> Yes, the CoG did exist eternally in the mind of God--as did table-tennis, football, and Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat beer--but the covenant was not made with the elect in eternity in that the elect did not exist as persons in order to be a party of the covenant (as opposed to the CoR and the persons of the Trinity).



When do you see the commencement of the COG redemptive historically? Genesis 3?



> The CoR is worked out temporally when the eternal Son, at the appointed time, took upon the work of the CoR as the incarnate Son, namely obedience to the Father unto the Mosaic Law (which is a typological covenant of works with the first Adam) as the last Adam for various promised rewards (i.e. annointing of the Spirit, resurrection, glorified body, the throne, a people of his own, etc.). The eternal, intratrinitarian covenant is worked out in time and space.



So the COR is made only with the Son in eternity, worked out in the COW by the GodMan in time, and only involves elect sinners through the COG, which is entered into by virtue of their union with Christ (COG essentially then is made with Christ) by grace through faith in Christ alone? 



> Does that answer it for you, Marcos?



Yes, thanks.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

"How do you understand the Covenant of Redemption in eternity and time?"

The COG is adminsistered through other covenantal administrations, such as the Old and New Covenants. The participation of the unelect in these administrations of the COG does not mean that all participants are elect. The unelect can benefit from common operations of the Spirit present in these covenantal administrations and yet never be truly saved.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

" . . . but the covenant was not made with the elect in eternity in that the elect did not exist as persons in order to be a party of the covenant . . . "

The covenant was made with Christ, who represented the elect who were yet to be born. Christ is acting in a federal, or representative, capacity. As He existed in all eternity, there is no difficulty in this.


----------



## Peters (Jul 27, 2005)

Scott, do you then not agree with the theological distinctions that have been made above concerning the COR and the COG?


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

Marcos: I will have to think about this some more. My current view is still that there is no formal or legal distinction (there is really only one covenant), although there may be a useful semantic distinction. My understanding is that the COG is eternal, made among the members of the Trinity, with Christ acting as mediator and on behalf of the elect. The COG is manifested in time through various temporal covenants like the Mosaic covenant or the New Covenant, whose membership is broader than the elect.

This conversation has been helpful. I had not understood before why some people would place the COG temporally. What is your understanding of who the COG was made between and when it first came into being?

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Marcos: I will have to think about this some more. My current view is still that there is no formal or legal distinction (*there is really only one covenant*), although there may be a useful semantic distinction. My understanding is that the COG is eternal, made among the members of the Trinity, with Christ acting as mediator and on behalf of the elect. The COG is manifested in time through various temporal covenants like the Mosaic covenant or the New Covenant, whose membership is broader than the elect.
> 
> This conversation has been helpful. I had not understood before why some people would place the COG temporally. What is your understanding of who the COG was made between and when it first came into being?
> ...



I'll post more, but my wife and I are having our baby! However, such a monocovenantal view is quite frightening due to the [necessary?] implications (as expressed in Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue covenant theology). The distinctions in historical reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism are far, far, far from "semantics." They are categorical and substantial distinctions that make real differences. I would suggest reading the Sum of All Saving Knowledge for a clearer understanding of the [necessary] distinctions.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> I'll post more, but my wife and I are having our baby!



Right now?  Well get thee to the delivery room, my lad!



We just had our third daughter in May, and the house is now full of wonderful sounds from our three-girl choir.  (singing Psalms, or in other tongues, depending on whether it's Abigail (4.5), Sarah (2.5) or Rebekah (2 mo.)

Todd


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

W.B.: I assure you that the COG view I expressed is typical of reformed orthodoxy, even if there are other views. These views existed long before the federal vision.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Marcos: I will have to think about this some more. My current view is still that there is no formal or legal distinction (there is really only one covenant), although there may be a useful semantic distinction. My understanding is that the COG is eternal, made among the members of the Trinity, with Christ acting as mediator and on behalf of the elect. The COG is manifested in time through various temporal covenants like the Mosaic covenant or the New Covenant, whose membership is broader than the elect.
> 
> This conversation has been helpful. I had not understood before why some people would place the COG temporally. What is your understanding of who the COG was made between and when it first came into being?
> ...



Hi Scott -

To follow up on a question asked but not answered as yet - if there truly is only the Covenant of Grace, eternally initiated, and having apparently no "time markers" in history, would you seriously argue that Adam's relationship with God, prior to the fall, was a relationship founded on the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2005)

No. It would have been governed by the Covenant of Works. God had not introduced an administration of the COG into history yet. Fisher in his catechism on the catechism (Q20) explains:

Q. 28. How are we to conceive of the covenant of grace, in respect of order and being?

A. Although the covenant of grace was the second covenant, in respect of order and manifestation to the world, yet it was first in respect of being, because it was actually made with Christ from eternity, Tit. 1:2.

Fisher's understanding of the COG appears to be the same as mine in terms of a single COG (as opposed to COR + COG).

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> No. It would have been governed by the Covenant of Works. God had not introduced an administration of the COG into history yet. Fisher in his catechism on the catechism (Q20) explains:



Okay, so what you said, previously, about there being only
one covenant between God and man really isn't what you 
meant.... right? That is - you weren't melding the CoW and CoR into one covenant, as some FV folk do. Rather, what you meant by one covenant was CoR = CoG. 

Todd

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by toddpedlar]

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by toddpedlar]


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

Hi Scott -

One thing i remain somewhat confused about, though - you argue that the CoG is made with elect and unelect alike. Am I hearing you correctly? It seems that this is something you've said in this thread. Just want to make sure I've heard you correctly.

Todd

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by toddpedlar]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> W.B.: I assure you that the COG view I expressed is typical of reformed orthodoxy, even if there are other views. These views existed long before the federal vision.



Actually, I think what you are expressing is atypical of reformed scholasticism, though it is represented (see Berkhof on page 265). As Berkhof states (page 265), the majority of reformed scholars distinguish between the CoR and the CoG; for instance Mastricht, Owen, Flavel, Charles Hodge, Turretin, Witsius, a' Brakel, Vos, Bavinck, Shedd, Heppe, etc., all make these distinctions. And these men were simply following Melanchton (so I think) and Coccejus (certainly). I do believe your view is in the minority. However, I do not want that to disuade you. But, I think the Sum of All Saving Knowledge is more indicative of the reformed majority understanding.

Scott, one thing we must ponder is (1) the requirements of the covenant(s) and (2) the promises of the covenant(s). In other words, if we are a covenanting/contracting party of the same covenant in which the eternal Son is a covenanting/contracting party, then are we not also required to do what the Son is required to do? And if we are a party in that same covenant, then are not the promises of that covenant (upon fulfillment) also promises unto us?

What was Christ required to do in this covenant? If we are not required to do the same, then how can we be covenanting/contracting parties in this same covenant? We would then be bound by the same requirements. And not only would we be bound by the same requirements, but we would be the benefactor of the same rewards. Therefore, not only do we have to obey the Mosaic Law, but upon that obedience we will be given a people of our own over whom we will rule on God's throne. Do you see the difficulty?

I think another "problem" might be your perceived symmetry between the covenantal federal heads and our position "in them." You see, in the covenant of works, we were actually a party of the covenant "in Adam," in that everything he earned and was rewarded by his merit you and I would have as well. The same is not true with the covenant of redemption. For instance, the Son was promised an elect people of his upon fulfilling his covenant, yet we do not receive that promise. Rather, we are the "object" of the covenant, not a party of it. This is not identical to the covenant of works. Rather, through faith alone Christ's active obedience is imputed to us and our transgressions are imputed to him. Because of that, we are now free from the covenant of works WE BROKE in Adam. However, we are not keepers of the covenant of redemption in Christ. Once Christ's work "replaces" Adam's work (and us in Adam), we are then in the covenant of grace where Christ is effectively now our federal head (in position). We enter into the covenant of grace, which has *DIFFERENT* requirements than the covenant of redemption. The covenant of redemption was a covenant of works for Jesus Christ, but the covenant of grace has no works, merely faith and repentance. Hence, if faith alone is the condition for the covenant of grace, yet works was the condition for the Son in the covenant of redemption, by definition they are *NOT* the same covenants. Does that make sense?

In order to be the same covenant, we must have the same requirements and promises. That simply is not the case. The Father did not promise to the elect in eternity that the elect would be the high-priest forever in the order of Melchizadek, or that we would have a people of our own. That was promised/covenanted to the Son based upon his obedience. We are promised escape from the wrath of God through faith alone because of what Christ did in covenant with the Father.

Please, ask more and more questions so we can all think upon this. But I want you to prove to me we can be in the same covenant without (1) the same requirements or (2) the same promises as any other contracting party? If the requirements/promises are different, then, by definition, it is not the same (identical covenant), but two different and distinct covenants.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 27, 2005)

> I take it by "œeternal" you mean something other than its eternal existence in the mind of God. Can you say that the COR has eternally existed externally?



Well, externally? Tricky language, since there was nothing outside of God prior to creation. So, what is "external"? However, I think I agree with what you are trying to say. It existed eternally in that the contracting parties--the persons of the trinity--were always in covenant with one another without beginning or end.



> When do you see the commencement of the COG redemptive historically? Genesis 3?



Yes, immediately after the fall.



> So the COR is made only with the Son in eternity, worked out in the COW by the GodMan in time, and only involves elect sinners through the COG, which is entered into by virtue of their union with Christ (COG essentially then is made with Christ) by grace through faith in Christ alone?



I think there is room for the third person of the Trinity in the CoR, but it is definitely neglected and not written upon with much of anything. However, the Holy Spirit does play a role in the CoR, so he can be seen as a member as well. But the main "focus" is between the Father and the Son. But, yes, for now, to your question.


----------



## Scott (Jul 28, 2005)

> "œOkay, so what you said, previously, about there being only one covenant between God and man really isn't what you meant.... right? That is - you weren't melding the CoW and CoR into one covenant, as some FV folk do. Rather, what you meant by one covenant was CoR = CoG."


I meant that the COR and the COG are one thing, as Beattie mentioned in the Presbyterian Standards. I do believe that there are two covenants, the COW and the COG (I don´t merge those). 



> "œOne thing i remain somewhat confused about, though - you argue that the CoG is made with elect and unelect alike. Am I hearing you correctly? It seems that this is something you've said in this thread. Just want to make sure I've heard you correctly."


No, the COG is only with the elect. The administrations of the COG are with elect and unelect. For example, the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the COG and the Mosaic Covenant had members who were elect and those who were unelect. However, only true believers participate in the full benefits of the COG (although unelect can benefit from common operations of the Spirit).

Scott


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 28, 2005)

Okay - well, Beattie may mention that, but it's far from being the common witness of all the reformers - many are they that distinguish the CoG from the CoR, for one, in terms of the parties involved, which differ between the two. If the parties differ, then they are different covenants. 

Anyway, I've understood you correctly, I think.

Todd


----------



## Scott (Jul 28, 2005)

> Scott, one thing we must ponder is (1) the requirements of the covenant(s) and (2) the promises of the covenant(s). In other words, if we are a covenanting/contracting party of the same covenant in which the eternal Son is a covenanting/contracting party, then are we not also required to do what the Son is required to do? And if we are a party in that same covenant, then are not the promises of that covenant (upon fulfillment) also promises unto us?



Not necessarily. In contract law there can be multi-party contracts that assign different duties to different parties, even related parties (such as parent and subsidiary corporations). 




> What was Christ required to do in this covenant? If we are not required to do the same, then how can we be covenanting/contracting parties in this same covenant? We would then be bound by the same requirements. And not only would we be bound by the same requirements, but we would be the benefactor of the same rewards. Therefore, not only do we have to obey the Mosaic Law, but upon that obedience we will be given a people of our own over whom we will rule on God's throne. Do you see the difficulty?



I am not sure if this will answer your question, but I will give it a shot. Christ is our mediator and federal head. He performs on our behalf by redeeming us through his sacrifice. God the Father rewards him with a Bride in return. We do not need to perform this individually (eg. the contract or covenant specifies who will perform what). Also, we would not be benefactor of the same rewards if the covenant did not specify that. The covenant specified who would receive the reward. Human contracts can do similar things easily. I think that this addresses your later comments as well. 

I have Turretin's Insitutes at home and will try and look at that tonight. I have always liked him quite a bit.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 29, 2005)

OK, I think I see what you are saying. You are saying there is one covenant in which the Father specifically commissions covenantal stipulations from the Son for something, and in turn commissions distinct/different stipulations from the elect for something?

So, you're saying there is one covenant with three contracting parties:

(A) God the Father and God the Son.

(B) The Triune God and the elect.

In other words, it looks like the following:

In the one covenant of grace, the Father promises unto the Son a people of his own (though there were many other promises) based upon his (the Son's) perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, and, conditioned upon that, the Triune God then promises unto the elect they will have eternal life based upon their "obedience of faith"?

So, the elect's obedience (grace/faith) is obedience to the same covenant in which the Son's obedience (merit/works) is required? It is simply, as you noted, more similar to a contract law? Where do you find an example of this in Scripture? I thought your idea might be similar to the Mosaic Covenant. For example, though the Mosaic covenant is "one covenant," different people must do different things within that covenant (i.e. priests must do one thing, kings another, laymen another, elders another, women another, etc.). However, I do not think even the Mosaic (or any other biblical covenant) fits the example of the one covenant of grace as noted above. For instance, even though different people had to do different things within the one Mosaic Covenant, it was for the SAME IDENTICAL promise. This, though, is not the case if you combine the Son and elect into the one covenant together. The Son's reward/promise is different than our reward/promise. But everyone shared in the same reward in the Mosaic Covenant: land, peoples, kings. Can you show me a biblical example of such a "contract law" covenant? The Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants do not seem to have any dualistic sense (three parties; different promises). For instance, in the New Covenant, we all keep it and break it the same for the same curses and rewards. Is this not the same with every other biblical covenant?


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Okay - well, Beattie may mention that, but it's far from being the common witness of all the reformers - many are they that distinguish the CoG from the CoR, for one, in terms of the parties involved, which differ between the two. *If the parties differ, then they are different covenants.*



Agreed, but I think you must also look at the stipulations, sanctions, and rewards. If those differ, then they are different covenants. For instance, you and I, Todd, are in the same covenant of grace with God. However, you and I are also in the same covenant of common grace with God. So, what distinguishes the covenants, since clearly the parties (individually speaking) are the same? The stipulations, sanctions, and rewards.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

WB: Well, the Fifth Commandment is the first commandment with a promise and it applies to a discrete subset of Israel, children. Obedience to parents will mean that things will go well for the child in the land. See Eph. 6:2, for example.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

"As Berkhof states (page 265), the majority of reformed scholars distinguish between the CoR and the CoG; for instance Mastricht, Owen, Flavel, Charles Hodge, Turretin, Witsius, a' Brakel, Vos, Bavinck, Shedd, Heppe, etc., all make these distinctions."

Unless I missed something (and I did not read the entire section in Turretin's Institutes on the COG), I am not sure how Berkhoff could place Turretin in this category. Turretin seems to expressly say that this issue is superfluous (see below). I looked at Turretin last night and did not find anything that distinguishes between the two. In fact, I could not find a direct reference to the COR - the only term he uses is COG. His description of the COG sounds pretty much like I have described it. He mentions that it is eternal, has multi-part obligations that differ, etc. He considers the issue of whether the COG should be understood to be two covenants (prsumably the first being the COR and the second being the COG, although he does not use the term COR). But he suggests that these distinctions are superfluous and that in the end we are really talking about the same thing. 

This is in Twelfth Topic, Question Two, par. XII.



> And it seems superfluous to inquire here whether this covenant was made with Christ as one of the contracting parties and in him with all His seed . . .; or whether the covenant was made in Christ with all the seed so that he does not so much hold the relation of a contracting party as a mediator, who stands between those who are at variance for the purpose of reconciling them . . . It is superfluous, I say, to dispute about this because it amounts to the same thing. It is certain that a twofold pact must be attended here or the two parts and degrees of one and the same pact. The former is the agreement between the Father and the Son to carry out the work of redemption. The latter is that which God makes with the elect in Christ, to save them by and on account of Christ under the conditions of faith and repentance. The former was made with the surety and head for the salvation of the members; the latter was made with the members in the head and surety.



I tend to agree with him. I think in the end we are all approaching this in the same way, whether one understands two covenants (COR and COG) or understand the single COG to have a two-fold aspect.

Scott


----------



## Peters (Jul 29, 2005)

> And it seems superfluous to inquire here whether this covenant was made with Christ as one of the contracting parties and in him with all His seed . . .; or whether the covenant was made in Christ with all the seed so that he does not so much hold the relation of a contracting party as a mediator, who stands between those who are at variance for the purpose of reconciling them"¦



I don´t think these are the distinctions being made though. I don´t see that the COR is represented here.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

marcos: Isn't this the distinction you are making:



> It is certain that a twofold pact must be attended here or the two parts and degrees of one and the same pact. The former is the agreement between the Father and the Son to carry out the work of redemption. The latter is that which God makes with the elect in Christ, to save them by and on account of Christ under the conditions of faith and repentance.



[1] COR = Eternal agreement between Father and Son
[2] COG = Agreement between Father and elect mankind

It is the debate about whether these concepts are two covenants (COR and COG) or two aspects of the same covenant. Turretin says the debate is superfluous. 

Scott


----------



## Peters (Jul 29, 2005)

I did notice this second part, Scott, but i couldn't work out how it was connected to the first part. This didn't strike me as identical to the point preceding it. Can you explain the connection, or how he is saying the same thing?


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

Marcos: The first part is a bit vague. I can only give my interpretation. He does not refer to the COR elsehwere as far as I can see and treats the COG in the twofold capacity in his various discussions. 

It seems he is saying that under one view Christ is the contracting party on His own behalf. Christ promises to perform His saving work and the Father promises to give Christ a people, what I see basically as you presenting the COR as. The elect receive benefit in Christ as third party beneficiaries, although they are not formally members of the covenant. IN English law, a third party beneficiary is someone who receives benefits from a contract between two other parties. The 3PB is not a party to the contract but can actually sue for benefits. 

The other view is that the elect are parties to the covenant. Christ enters the covenant in the sense of a mediator. He enters the covenant on behalf of the elect. He is acting in an agency capacity.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 29, 2005)

Scott:

Brother, I agree, this distinction (or lack thereof) is not something over which *ANY* reformed congregation, denomination, or brothers should divide. In substance, there really isn't much difference. But categorically (in precision), there are differences, and, so thinks I, as the implications of such distinctions are worked out "down the road." Yet, I do not think such differences will ever create something over which one should divide.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

I have found as few people interested in the COG as you guys. I thought you might appreciate this. These are some comments I did for a Sunday School class on the Book of Judges. I think if you read COG to mean COR, you will find this interesting. I think we see a shadow of the COR/COG in the story of Othneil. 

The relevant portion of Judges reads:


> From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). 12 And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." 13 Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage.
> 14 One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him [a] to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?"
> 15 She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." Then Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.


Here we see a vague image of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is an agreement among the members of the Trinity by which God´s elect are redeemed. It is eternal and has always existed. Titus 1:2. In this agreement, The Father promises to provide a Bride (the people of God) to the savior Christ upon the savior´s performance of His covenant obligations. John 17:6. The Son agrees to redeem the people by conquering an enemy (through His death). Col. 2:13-15. The Father then will send the Holy Spirit to this Bride to be with them. 

In the story of Othneil and Acash, we see a similar pattern. A Father promises a bride to a conquering savior on performance of the obligations imposed by the Father. The savior conquers the enemy. The Father gives the savior a bride. He then gives the bride springs of water (which symbolize the Holy Spirit). 

The springs of water are symbolic of the giving of the Holy Spirit. Water is often associated with the Holy Spirit in the Bible. John 7:37-39 reads:


> 37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "œIf anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as[c] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.


Christ conveys the same teaching to the woman at the well. In that story, though, he calls the water a well or spring. John 4:14. You will note that Christ says that scriptures teach that those who believe in Him will receive living water. Christ is referring to the Old Testament, as the New Testament had not been written. It is in the Book Judges and many similar stories that we have this veiled prophecy of the living water. There are many other stories which involve living water that represent the Spirit. You might do a search for the number of stories that involve springs, wells, and Oasis, often with somewhat unusual events surrounding them. 

It is also worth noting that the bride rides a donkey. The donkey is an unclean animal, which symbolizes the gentile heathen nations. See, for example, Acts 10. By having the bride (the Church) ride on a tamed unclean beast, we get a veiled sense that the Church will tame and domesticate the gentile nations. In other words, She will Christianize them, which is what she has been doing slowly for 2,000 years. 

Thoughts?

Scott


----------

