# Christ and the curse of the COR



## Houston E. (Nov 17, 2008)

(If this has already been discussed, please direct me to the thread.)

In C. Matthew McMahon's _A Simplistic Overview of Covenant Theology,_ he makes the following quote,


> By oath, the Son is consigned to covenant with the Father. he is to be priest. He is to be the sacrifice for sin and the priest who continually intercedes for those for whom He dies. In this, the Son is ratified by the oath to make the Counsel of Peace effectual. he now must obey. If He does not obey, *the oath is broken, and curse would *result.


My question... was there really a possibility of Christ breaking covenant and thereby being subject to the curse?

If there was not, but yet the reality of the curse existed, then why is there not equally a true reality of a curse (and not purely hypothetical) when one states the position of only the elect can be in the New Covenant?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm having trouble understanding the question, or at least the second question.

wrt the first Q., Christ--divine and perfect--doesn't, can't, won't break his word. It's impossible for God to lie. Heb.6:18

wrt Q2, what is the "reality of the curse" you speak to? Is it the reality of the curse that man is involved in? Because certainly it would be the case that the effect of the curse of the Covenant of Works (eternal death) would happen to the whole human race, without an effectual Mediation.

Are you positing a "real" curse that is enfolded in the Cov. of Redemption, in which Christ would merit a "punishment" unto himself if he failed in his work? Frankly, I don't see how this is anything other than a pure hypothetical. There is no discussion in Scripture of "what would happen to Christ" if he failed, because this is not a serious possibility. It's past any conception, so no "result" of such a thing needs explication.

Not sure if that's what you are seeking to clarify. I know I don't understand what the rest of the question is seeking.


----------



## Houston E. (Nov 18, 2008)

Thanks for your reply Bruce, I'll try to clear it up a bit...



Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm having trouble understanding the question, or at least the second question.
> 
> wrt the first Q., Christ--divine and perfect--doesn't, can't, won't break his word. It's impossible for God to lie. Heb.6:18



This does help me with the first question, and what I assumed all along. There was no possibility that Christ would not fulfill the COR. However, I was quoting Matthew's book that seemed to indicate that the possibility of the curse existed if Christ did not fulfill His role.



> wrt Q2, what is the "reality of the curse" you speak to? Is it the reality of the curse that man is involved in? Because certainly it would be the case that the effect of the curse of the Covenant of Works (eternal death) would happen to the whole human race, without an effectual Mediation.



I was referring to the blessing or curse placed upon a covenant member.
What I was shooting for was a discussion concerning those that believe that the New Covenant is only comprised of the elect, and those that believe it to be comprised of elect & non-elect. 
The arguments for the latter have stated that if it doesn't consist of both, then passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6, are purely hypothetical since an elect member cannot come under the curse of the covenant.

So I was trying to show a comparison of that we are perfectly fine with stating that Christ could in no way fail, yet according to McMahon "If He does not obey, the oath is broken, and curse would result." I.e. a reality of a curse was there. However, we are not okay with the fact that none of Christ's elect will be lost, yet a reality of a curse is still present for those covenant members who fall away. 



> It's past any conception, so no "result" of such a thing needs explication.



So do you disagree with McMahon on that point?

If I'm comparing apples to oranges just let me know, but I just found that statement regarding the curse to be interesting.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 18, 2008)

Thanks Trey,
You might wait for Matt to weigh in for himself, but I don't think he is 1) wrt Christ, speaking other than hypothetically when he writes: "If He does not obey, the oath is broken, and curse would result." I'm saying: the fact that the Son enters into this oath for our salvation IS the guarantee of it. And I don't think I'm in disagreement with Matt.

And 2) it is still hypothetical wrt US, albeit in a different way, because we were already under a curse, only the doom of it had been suspended until the Son came and took our doom--_unless_ (hypothetically) he shouldn't have, and then the doom would fall on us, i.e. "curse would result."

Not all hypotheticals require a fully worked out system of contrary-to-fact contingencies. The Bible doesn't EVER discuss what would happen to _Christ_ if he didn't do what he swore to do. It would require a different sort of GOD than we have, a different sort of reality, and we can't effectively conceive of those alternatives.

The Bible can speak of what would happen to US, if there was no Mediator (for one reason or another). The situation would be hopeless and worse; our lives would be cosmically meaningless. The fact of our lives would appear to be simply so that God could populate hell. But this suggestions only magnifies the good hope we have in Christ.

I don't think the hypothetical parallels (Christ/us) are at all equal. The essential conditions are completely different.

For this reason, I do not agree that the warnings in Hebrews are purely hypothetical. They are hypothetical for the elect, of course, in the same way as the second instance above. But humans being what they are, they are sinners with imperfect knowledge, even of self.

Apostasy is a real phenomenon. Apostates are falling away from something, from someone. Gal 5:4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

The difference between the Baptist who believes the NC is "*only* with elect" and the Reformed who believes the Cov. of Grace (including the NC administration) is "*essentially* with the elect" has to do with the _exhibition_ of that covenant in the world. It comes down to the predicate: "We're not in heaven yet."

As with the rest of the economies of covenant in the world, it is our belief that the NT church is the sphere of worldly administration of the NC. This is not an age of unmediated communion with God. The secular or militant church is Christ's agency, the means by which he conquers and subdues the world. His victories do not look like the victories of worldly empire. In fact, they look like the OPPOSITE of worldly pomp.

But there is still a structure to Christ's kingdom: leaders, followers, families, gatherings, organization, speech/language, ceremony, memory, inclusion, exclusion, etc. We separate between possession of the outer forms only, and the possession of the "substance" of the covenant.

And we say this is *always* the manner in which this reign of God has been conveyed in the world (be it Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, anytime). Imperfectly, because "We're not in heaven yet." We have more of the substance NOW, than ever before in the past, because of the finished work of Christ. But not the whole thing.

Bottom line, because we say there is still an earthly administration of God's Covenant of Grace through his kingdom (because we have to experience things still embodied), then there will still be interlopers in the New Covenant, as there were in all the past administrations.


----------



## Houston E. (Nov 19, 2008)

Thanks Bruce,
I'll ponder that a bit and get back to you.


----------

