Covenant Theology and Christ’s Mediating Work

[HisRobes4Mine]

As I continue to work through my understanding of Covenant Theology, I am puzzled a bit by the mediating work of Christ. In what sense is Christ mediating now and in what sense did he mediate, if at all, in the OT.

I always understood the mediating work of Christ as specifically related to his salvific work on behalf of his people. Yet, if the Presbyterian view of CT is correct, there is a sense in which Christ is also mediating for unbelievers. If this is correct, in what sense is Christ mediating for unbelievers?

How would you understand this issue and what resources would you direct me to to look into this further?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I always understood the mediating work of Christ as specifically related to his salvific work on behalf of his people. Yet, if the Presbyterian view of CT is correct, there is a sense in which Christ is also mediating for unbelievers. If this is correct, in what sense is Christ mediating for unbelievers?

Read the Westminster Catechisms on this point. In the covenant of grace, Christ is the mediator for the elect alone. The non-elect only belong to the external administration of the covenant, but only the elect are truly in the covenant of grace.

 

[Wretched Man]

As I continue to work through my understanding of Covenant Theology, I am puzzled a bit by the mediating work of Christ. In what sense is Christ mediating now and in what sense did he mediate, if at all, in the OT.

I always understood the mediating work of Christ as specifically related to his salvific work on behalf of his people. Yet, if the Presbyterian view of CT is correct, there is a sense in which Christ is also mediating for unbelievers. If this is correct, in what sense is Christ mediating for unbelievers?

How would you understand this issue and what resources would you direct me to to look into this further?

I've recently been wrestling with Covenant Theology (I read Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants, Pascal Denault's The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and a host of other materials on the subject) and am beginning to wonder if covenant theology has been made overly complicated. As a friend of mine summarized...

• The Abrahamic Covenant was about the promise (or "revealing" as Denault would say) of the Messiah (physical offspring of Abraham, Galatians 3:16), and the promise for salvation to all who put their faith in him (spiritual offspring of Abraham, Galatians 3:7). Thus there is a physical and spiritual dimension. This is the covenant of grace.
• The Mosaic Covenant, i.e. the Law or the Old Covenant, was about showing us what the Messiah would have to fulfill in order to please God (Matthew 5:17-18). It is inferior to the New Covenant because the Old Covenant cannot bring salvation in itself (Hebrews 7:18-19). It provided for the preservation of a people that would bring about the promised seed, and for the preservation of godliness on the earth among a remnant of that people.
• The New Covenant is the completion (or "concluding" as Denault would say) of the Abrahamic Covenant, being the means through which salvation comes (Hebrews 9:13-15, Romans 3:23-26). The physical component of the Abrahamic covenant, namely the physical offspring and the sign of circumcision, has been fulfilled because Messiah has come. Circumcision began with Abraham as a simple sign of the covenant and was not part of the Law which came much later (Galatians 3:17); but it did become institutionalized in the Law and has been done away along with the rest of the Law (Galatians 5:2-3). The New Covenant is exclusively with the spiritual offspring of Abraham (Jeremiah 31:31-34), because there is no more need for a physical offspring to bring about the promised seed. The sign of the covenant (baptism) is logically only applied to members of the covenant.

It is noteworthy that Hebrews repeatedly calls the Mosaic Covenant the “first” covenant (e.g. 9:1 and 9:15, and calls the New Covenant the “second” (8:7). It also refers to the New Covenant as being “eternal” (13:20). If this is paired with Paul’s comments on the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans and Galatians, then the conclusion must be that the Abrahamic and New Covenants are really the same covenant, with the Mosaic Covenant being the odd one out.

 

[Chad Hutson]

If this is paired with Paul’s comments on the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans and Galatians, then the conclusion must be that the Abrahamic and New Covenants are really the same covenant, with the Mosaic Covenant being the odd one out.

Bingo!

 

[brandonadams]

Samuel, you appear to be asking two different questions:

• What is the relationship between Christ's mediation today, vs Christ's mediation prior to His incarnation.

I think John Ball has a helpful discussion of that. See the excerpts here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/03/28/john-ball-on-salvation-prior-to-christs-death/

• In what way is Christ mediator of reprobate/unbelievers?

I will leave it to Presbyterians to explain in what way Christ is mediator of non-elect members of the CoG. For a baptist perspective, consider these words from Nehemiah Coxe:

1. The infinitely wise and gracious God, who from eternity
foresaw the fall of man, also had from eternity a gracious purpose in
himself according to the counsel of his own will, to redeem and save
a remnant of lost mankind from their lapsed and fallen state, and
by his all-powerful grace, through the merits of Christ, to recover
them from misery to the inheritance of a kingdom and glory far
greater than that set before Adam in his integrity. And these eternal
counsels that were hid with himself were transacted in a way of
covenant between the Father and the Son, even in a covenant of
redemption, now revealed in the Scriptures of truth. To this
covenant belong all the promises of the Father to the Mediator, and
the restipulatory engagements of the Redeemer about the salvation
of sinners and the way and method of its accomplishment. With
respect to these counsels the Son of God is said to be the Father’s
delight, and himself also to have his delight in the habitable world
when the highest part of its dust was formed (Proverbs 8:22-31). In
this context the mutual acquiescence both of the Father and the Son,
in this admirable contrivance of infinite grace and wisdom, is not
obscurely set out.

2. In pursuing this covenant of redemption and the suretyship of
Christ taken in it upon the fall of man, the government of the world
was actually put into the hands of the Son of God, the designed
Mediator, who interposed himself for the prevention of its present
and utter ruin. By him were all future transactions managed for the
good of man, and all discoveries of grace and mercy were made to
the children of men in him and by him. All things in heaven and
earth were brought into an order subservient to the ends of the new
creation and the redemption of lost man to be accomplished in the
fullness of time by the Son of God incarnate. Fallen man could have
no more to do with God, nor God with him in a way of kindness,
except in a mediator.
(page 54)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As I continue to work through my understanding of Covenant Theology, I am puzzled a bit by the mediating work of Christ. In what sense is Christ mediating now and in what sense did he mediate, if at all, in the OT.

I always understood the mediating work of Christ as specifically related to his salvific work on behalf of his people. Yet, if the Presbyterian view of CT is correct, there is a sense in which Christ is also mediating for unbelievers. If this is correct, in what sense is Christ mediating for unbelievers?

How would you understand this issue and what resources would you direct me to to look into this further?

Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. Now he is our King, Prophet, and Priest. As King, he rules and defends us as citizens of his dominion. As Prophet, he mediates God's word to his people for their good. As Priest, he covers our sins, pleads his own blood to God, and ever lives to make intercession.

He does all that now in view of what he accomplished in history gone by. He did the same prior to the historic demonstration in view of what he would accomplish. In the OT age, those who lived by faith (see Heb.11) put their hope in what would be done for them at the set time, whenever that should be. Today, in the NT age, his people live by faith in the meaning of his life, death, resurrection and ascension, together with the conclusion of our salvation which is still future.

As for the claim that Christ is in some sense mediating for unbelievers: this is a "talking point" of some Baptists, as they interpret Presbyterian CT, or as they reconfigure CT to conform better to their own principles, express matters. However, in a fundamental way this fails to reckon with classic CT self-understanding.

Here is what Presbyterians confess in the Larger Catechism:

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?​

A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.​

​

Jesus mediates for the elect, period. The question to be answered is: how are the elect related to the Covenant of Grace?

They are related in both a Spiritual and internal administration, the invisible and personal work of God; and ideally and for the best in a public, outward and visible administration, the realm of the church carrying out the kingdom program of Lordship over his people

The non-elect are not related to the CoG in a full administration, but only under the outward and visible administration. These are the sort of people who pay "lip service" to their devotion, but "the Lord knows them that are his." They accept what they can take of his gifts mediated them through his church, like the ground that drinks in the rain, but produces only thistles. But for this presumption, they only store up wrath in the day when all is revealed--if their apostasy in this life is not revealed even sooner.

Jesus is not mediating for unbelievers nor did he ever do so, for instance in the OT. But, the visible administration of the CoG--whether OT or NT--is imperfect. Those charged with the conduct of the earthly offices, in the OT the typological mediators of king, prophet, and priest; in the NT the ongoing ministry of the church in its elders, teachers, and deacons--these serve an undifferentiated crowd so long as they are not "cut off from their people".

There's an appearance that cannot be avoided this side of heaven, both before the cross and after it, that *everyone* numbered among the saints are receiving the gifts of God mediated to them. But the fact is, that even in the days of a national church-state, "not all are Israel who are OF Israel." A Jew was not one who was simply outwardly marked by circumcision; but as Paul clearly spelled out in Rom.2, he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and true circumcision is (as it was in Abraham's day, and Moses' day, and David's day, and Daniel's day, etc.) of the heart.

The claim by those who offer a different approach, is that the NC is "different" in that it has no outward administration. Jesus by his Spirit offers only an inward administration. Prior to his first Coming, there was either: a two-fold administration such as classic CT claims is/always exists; or that there was essentially ONLY an outward administration, an illustration and picture of the future, perfect NC which should be purely spiritual.

You are presently attending a Baptist church. It is only natural that you are going to be getting a certain flavor of CT there, and that the instructional perspective you get on "what Presbyterians believe" is as understood from within the Baptist paradigm.

If you want a classic CT approach, read a work such as Herman Witsius' Economy of the Covenants. Go to the Heidelblog (heidelblog.net) and immerse yourself in the print and audio resources related to CT as expressed in the 3FU and WCF. Most of what is found in Zach Keele and Mike Brown's, Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored is both uncontroversial and up-to-date, and is less of a long read than Witsius. I'm pretty sure there are equally (if not superior) fresh resources out there treating the same topic.

I hope this clears up some misunderstanding for you. Jesus perfectly mediates for his elect, only them, ever (past) and always (future). That which exhibits his for-the-elect-mediatorship in this world must, inevitably, be an imperfect display. It constantly requires observation and discipline. Until we are in heaven, and then Christ will be all in all.

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for clarifying your own view Bruce.

The claim by those who offer a different approach, is that the NC is "different" in that it has no outward administration. Jesus by his Spirit offers only an inward administration. Prior to his first Coming, there was either: a two-fold administration such as classic CT claims is/always exists; or that there was essentially ONLY an outward administration, an illustration and picture of the future, perfect NC which should be purely spiritual.

To clarify, this is not an accurate representation of 1689 Federalism (if that is what you were trying to summarize in that statement). I encourage you to study our position more closely. Furthermore, we do not find the language of "administration" entirely helpful, so trying to describe our view using your terms is likely not going to wind up with an accurate representation of what we believe.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Brandon, could you clarify where/how Bruce's summary doesn't line up with 1689 Federalism? It might be helpful for some of us. Thanks.

 

[Solparvus]

As I continue to work through my understanding of Covenant Theology, I am puzzled a bit by the mediating work of Christ. In what sense is Christ mediating now and in what sense did he mediate, if at all, in the OT.

I always understood the mediating work of Christ as specifically related to his salvific work on behalf of his people. Yet, if the Presbyterian view of CT is correct, there is a sense in which Christ is also mediating for unbelievers. If this is correct, in what sense is Christ mediating for unbelievers?

How would you understand this issue and what resources would you direct me to to look into this further?

Greetings brother

This might help you.

Romans 11
- Who are the branches?
- Is it one tree, or two?
- Who is the sap or root?
- How do explain the cutting off?

If you give close thought to that very last question, it’ll reveal some answers.

 

[brandonadams]

Brandon, could you clarify where/how Bruce's summary doesn't line up with 1689 Federalism? It might be helpful for some of us. Thanks.

Thank you for the question. I don't want to deter from the OP, as this line of discussion easily could, but since Bruce thought it was relevant to his reply and the OP, I wanted to clarify.

Much of the issue depends on what is meant by "administration." I will try to state our view as clearly as possible:

1. We do not believe that the various post-fall, pre-incarnation covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) saved anyone. The Noahic was made with all of post-diluvian humanity to the world from further judgment. The Abrahamic was made with Abraham and his carnal offspring, promising them the land of Canaan and that the promised Christ would be born from them. The Mosaic elaborated the conditions for Abraham's offspring's inheritance of Canaan. The Davidic narrowed the promise that Christ would be born from them to the line of David. We believe all of these covenants were distinct from the New Covenant.
2. Only the New Covenant saves. It is union with Christ, made only with the regenerate elect.
3. Thus the New Covenant is "different" because it saves.
4. Prior to Christ's incarnation, OT saints were saved by the New Covenant. They were united to Christ and received His benefits (in their own day) in anticipation of His work.
5. These saints were saved by hearing and believing the gospel. The gospel message was communicated primarily through promises and prophecies, but also through types and shadows (i.e. animal sacrifices).
6. Prior to its formal establishment in the death of Christ, the New Covenant had no ordinances or instituted worship. Once it was established, its ordinances and means of worship were instituted.

Please let me know where I can further elaborate or clarify.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To clarify, this is not an accurate representation of 1689 Federalism (if that is what you were trying to summarize in that statement).

I know better than to characterize a particular view, with its own self-understanding, according to my own interpretation, filtered through a distortion lens. If I aim to address someone, I'll quote them or name them.

According to his signature, Samuel attends a Baptist church, and adheres to the WCF. I have no idea what sort of Baptist church, or what sort of Baptist-covenantalism. So, my statements are "in general." If "your own view" is X, if the shoe fits wear it. Otherwise, I wasn't addressing your concerns.

Thanks for clarifying your own view Bruce.

The OP asked about "the Presbyterian view of CT," so... as presented, not an idiosyncratic rendition. But thanks for clarifying the 1689F view of CT.

 

[brandonadams]