Jesus & the Covenant of Works

[msortwell]

I am looking for some clarification.

As a recovering dispensationalist, I occasionally find myself discovering flaws in my way of thinking through some basic theological issues. The latest was when I read of the clear distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant. To be clear, I had already concluded academically that the Mosaic Covenant was an outworking of the Covenant of Grace, but had unknowingly held on to the notion that it was Jesus' perfect keeping of the Mosaic Law (including the spirit thereof) that qualified Him to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the elect.

However, as I came to better understand the BASICS of CT, I came to understand that it was the obedience to Covenant of Works, and not obedience to the Mosaic Law that qualified Him to be our Savior. However, this left me having to reconcile that Jesus MUST BE a participant in the Covenant of Works without being subject to the curse of Adam's transgression.

Perhaps this is Theology 101 and I am embarrassing myself by struggling to make sure I understand the most fundamental federal doctrines, but I want to make sure I understand what specifically the Reformed view understands about this issue.

Christ must have, in a sense, been IN Adam, to be subject to the Covenant of Works, and thereby be credited with obedience to it - upon obedience to it.

Christ must have, in a sense, NOT been IN Adam, to be unaffected by the curse of Adam's transgression, which enabled Christ to be without sin and able to obey God's commands perfectly.

Are these two "must have"s addressed simply by Jesus being both fully God and fully man. That is, unlike the rest of us, He, when he walked on this earth, was spiritually connected to Adam in precisely the same way that he was on the day that Adam was created. That is, He spiritually preceded Adam and, in NO sense was spiritually IN ADAM during Adam's transgression. But, when Jesus was born in the flesh, He became a participant in the Covenant of Works simply by virtue of having been born a fleshly descendent of Adam. He was a participant in the Covenant, joined in some sense to Adam, but not a participant in the transgression and resulting curse.

OR . . . and this is just now forming in my mind . . . Was Jesus a participant in the Covenant of Works because the covenant was made between the Godhead (of which he was a part) and the human (Adam) that humans were to walk in perfect obedience to the covenant? Still this leaves us with the challenge of trying to grasp how Christ was obedient to the Covenant of Works even though the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not accessible to those who walked in the flesh in the 1st century? This would seem to require us to extend the Covenant of Works beyond the simple command given to Adam.

 

[Peairtach]

However, as I came to better understand the BASICS of CT, I came to understand that it was the obedience to Covenant of Works, and not obedience to the Mosaic Law that qualified Him to be our Savior. However, this left me having to reconcile that Jesus MUST BE a participant in the Covenant of Works without being subject to the curse of Adam's transgression.

The moral law - as summarised in the Ten Commandments - is the law of the CoW which was written on Adam's heart and which he was to keep, but broke by disobeying God.

Jesus was subject to the curse of the troubles of this life, physical death and Hell, which He bore on the Cross, because He was carrying the sins of His people and fulfilling all righteousness for them as a CoW.

Christ must have, in a sense, been IN Adam, to be subject to the Covenant of Works, and thereby be credited with obedience to it - upon obedience to it.

God entered into a renewed CoW with Christ and His people through them. Christ wasn't/isn't in Adam. Jesus "picked up" the CoW on behalf of His people, something no-one had been able to do since Adam.

Christ must have, in a sense, NOT been IN Adam, to be unaffected by the curse of Adam's transgression, which enabled Christ to be without sin and able to obey God's commands perfectly.

Christ was sinless but voluntarily carried the sins of His people and therefore suffered God's wrath and curse for their sins. Whether that included carrying Adam's sins, depends on whether Adam was a believer. Christ must have carried Adam's first sin - on behalf of all believers - since we are all implicated in that primal sin.

Are these two "must have"s addressed simply by Jesus being both fully God and fully man. That is, unlike the rest of us, He, when he walked on this earth, was spiritually connected to Adam in precisely the same way that he was on the day that Adam was created. That is, He spiritually preceded Adam and, in NO sense was spiritually IN ADAM during Adam's transgression. But, when Jesus was born in the flesh, He became a participant in the Covenant of Works simply by virtue of having been born a fleshly descendent of Adam. He was a participant in the Covenant, joined in some sense to Adam, but not a participant in the transgression and resulting curse.

That the Man Christ Jesus didn't have Adam's sin is probably because He was also God and because of the way He was conceived. That He had to carry the sins of His people and fulfil all righteousness for them by way of a CoW, was the choice of the Son of God in love for them.

OR . . . and this is just now forming in my mind . . . Was Jesus a participant in the Covenant of Works because the covenant was made between the Godhead (of which he was a part) and the human (Adam) that humans were to walk in perfect obedience to the covenant?

The Son of God agreed to save His people by means of a CoW, which for His people is the grace of God to them in the CoG.

Still this leaves us with the challenge of trying to grasp how Christ was obedient to the Covenant of Works even though the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not accessible to those who walked in the flesh in the 1st century? This would seem to require us to extend the Covenant of Works beyond the simple command given to Adam.

The law of Christ's CoW is the same as that of Adam: i.e. perfect obedience to God. The time and place, and accompaniments, are different.

Perhaps this is Theology 101 and I am embarrassing myself by struggling to make sure I understand the most fundamental federal doctrines, but I want to make sure I understand what specifically the Reformed view understands about this issue.

It's easy to get these things mixed up until they are explained to you, especially with your background. We are always learbing new things.

Sorry for my lack of Scripture references in this post.

 

[py3ak]

Michael, these are deep and excellent questions; certainly not something to be ashamed of asking!

Adam can in no sense be said to be Christ's covenant head; but in his role as our substitute, of course, Christ is made under the law. Just as, with reference to human nature, what is not assumed is not redeemed, I think we can also say with regard to how we are circumstanced, that what was not shared was not defeated: and so Christ was subjected to the attacks of the devil, temptation, cruelty, the curse of the law, death itself - that he might triumph over them all as our head.

 

[msortwell]

Sorry for my lack of Scripture references in this post.

Thank you for your response. I would appreciate it, if you have the time, if you would provide some of the Scripture references that undergird the points that you made.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[msortwell]

Michael, these are deep and excellent questions; certainly not something to be ashamed of asking!

Adam can in no sense be said to be Christ's covenant head; but in his role as our substitute, of course, Christ is made under the law. Just as, with reference to human nature, what is not assumed is not redeemed, I think we can also say with regard to how we are circumstanced, that what was not shared was not defeated: and so Christ was subjected to the attacks of the devil, temptation, cruelty, the curse of the law, death itself - that he might triumph over them all as our head.

[Emphasis Added]

Where I have pause is in seeing where Jesus could be a legitimate substitute for the elect unless He fulfills the role illustrated by the OT kinsmen redeemer. In the OT illustration/type the redeemer is a relative, and this element seems to be too fundamental to the concept to be insignificant in the anti-type. It SEEMS that Christ, as our redeemer must be a kinsman (in some sense) and it has long seemed to me to be why Christ was born of a mortal woman. So that, in a human sense, He was born in the line of man. This doesn't make it true, but it is the way I have generally understood it. Clearly, being born of a woman did not confer upon the Christ original sin - the reason this is true is another subject.

But, is this the full means by which Christ is our kinsman - merely be being a man of flesh? And if our kinsman, then he need NOT be subject to the CoW to fulfill our obligations within it FOR us?

I guess I am asking, was Jesus NOT born under the CoW. but was born as a human without the obligation for obedience to the CoW?

 

[Peairtach]

Sorry for my lack of Scripture references in this post.

Thank you for your response. I would appreciate it, if you have the time, if you would provide some of the Scripture references that undergird the points that you made.

Blessings,

Mike

Check out the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VII, including its Scripture proofs, and if you have more Qs you can come back:

Westminster Confession of Faith

I think your main confusion is that the CoW with Adam, and all Mankind in him, must be the exact same as the CoW with Christ, and all His people with Him.

For the substance of them, they are the same, in that both Adam and Christ had to render perfect obedience to God's law. But Adam and Christ are two different covenantal heads, of two different "attempts" to keep the CoW, for two different groups of people, in two different locations, at two different times in history.

They are related in that both had to observe the law for a period of probation, and in that Christ, the Last Adam, is God's provision to elect humanity, because of Adam's failure.

What is the connection between Christ's observation of the law, and suffering of its curse, as a CoW, and the Covenant of Grace (CoG)?

It is because of Christ's perfect observation of the law as a CoW, and payment of its penalty, that God can extend mercy and grace to His true people, as they embrace Christ by faith in the CoG.

To further make things interesting (or complicated?) the eternal agreement between the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit), to save the elect, is often referred to by covenant theologians as the pactum salutis or Covenant of Redemption.

The "Covenant of Redemption" is God's "planning" of Christ's fulfilment of the CoW broken by humanity in Adam, and of the CoG, presented to lost humanity as the way of salvation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Christ takes his humanity--his identification with the human race--from Adam. He is "born of the seed of David, according to the flesh."

But it is precisely his unique birth, the fact that Adam is not his father, according to the flesh, whereby Jesus owes him nothing by way of fealty.

Jesus is "made of woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law." He voluntarily subjects himself under the law--not because he must fulfill it in order to qualify himself (as some have argued) for his role; his obedience is not for himself--but in order to grant us credit for obedience, our empty balance sheets.

Such is the "active obedience" of Christ. We identify his passive obedience as that suffering he underwent, the penalty for all of our transgressions. This is the debt-ledger, the red ink of what we owed as tribute. Whence cometh the work of positive requirement? Nothing we offer comes up worthy, everything is substandard, mixed with sin so that we should repent of our obedience (so-called).

His being under the law, therefore, is not to fulfill the CoW for his own Person, or because he owes this obedience as a mere creation. His obedience was perfect from all eternity, his humanity was perfectly qualified for a sacrifice at his moment of conception. Nor was there any probation in his living a life of humiliation for some 33 and 1/2 years. He is in all important ways exactly "like us," he became one of us in both body and soul. His humanity is not unique.

But in certain ways, he is not exactly like us; he is better that our first representative, Adam. 1Cor.15:47, "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven." Not simply that he is now glorified in his human nature, for in due time "we shall be like him" as he is now. But that he possesses particular qualities that suit one of his supreme dignity and office. Humans ape this kind of exaltation when they put certain men on pedestals; but our ranks and orders-of-being are unworthy of notice, compared to Christ.

It is because of who he is, not simply what he accomplished, that he is so suitable a Mediator, and was constituted the Head of a new human-race, under the auspices of the Covenant of Grace.

 

[msortwell]

His being under the law, therefore, is not to fulfill the CoW for his own Person, or because he owes this obedience as a mere creation. His obedience was perfect from all eternity, his humanity was perfectly qualified for a sacrifice at his moment of conception. Nor was there any probation in his living a life of humiliation for some 33 and 1/2 years. He is in all important ways exactly "like us," he became one of us in both body and soul. His humanity is not unique.

First, I want to that you for your full response. It is helping me to understand better what I had previously held rather loosely and imprecisely. By way of follow up, I have the following . . .

With consideration to the righteousness that is imputed to the redeemed, is it the innate righteousness of Christ as God, or is it the righteousness manifested in Jesus’ perfect obedience within the framework of the covenant of redemption – the covenant of redemption being a covenant of works with Jesus as the party committed to obey its demands, which, in turn, included Jesus' righteous living as a first century Jewish man?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

With consideration to the righteousness that is imputed to the redeemed, is it the innate righteousness of Christ as God, or is it the righteousness manifested in Jesus’ perfect obedience within the framework of the covenant of redemption – the covenant of redemption being a covenant of works with Jesus as the party committed to obey its demands, which, in turn, included Jesus' righteous living as a first century Jewish man?

Michael,

As a former dispensationalist, I understand what you are going through. I hope I can help.

First, I think there needs to be an understanding of Christ's Passive AND active obedience. Second, do not mix the understanding of a covenant of works with a covenant of grace. Christ fulfilled what Adam could not. He fulfilled the Law's requirements. Something to keep in mind is the fact that the Ten Commandments are an expression of the Covenant of Works. Some on the board might not like the term "republication", but the Ten Commandments are (in some sense) a republication of the Covenant of Works, which Christ came to fulfill, and not abolish. Yet, He did this from the overall scope of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works was specifically with Adam. The Covenant of Grace was with Christ, expressed throughout scripture.

There are definitely more qualified men on this board to answer these questions, but I hope this helps.

 

[Peairtach]

With consideration to the righteousness that is imputed to the redeemed, is it the innate righteousness of Christ as God, or is it the righteousness manifested in Jesus’ perfect obedience within the framework of the covenant of redemption – the covenant of redemption being a covenant of works with Jesus as the party committed to obey its demands, which, in turn, included Jesus' righteous living as a first century Jewish man?

He had to produce this righteousness as a man (the Man) and as a first century Israelite (He was circumcised), and as a first century Christian (He was baptised).

If His righteousness as God was enough to save His people, the incarnation would never have needed to happen.

Since the CoW with Adam and his children was alreadt broken, and we were all sinners, Jesus not only had to keep the law as a CoW perfectly for His people, but also had to pay the penalty of the broken law as a CoW.

E.g.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Gal 4:4)

And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. (Matt 3:15)

 

[Peairtach]

Andrew

First, I think there needs to be an understanding of Christ's Passive AND active obedience.

Just to clarify for Michael, Jesus' passive obedience is the theological term for His suffering on our behalf for our sins, as representing us and "carrying" our sins throughout His whole life; His active obedience is the theological term for His whole life of active obedience on our behalf, as representing us and working a perfect life of righteousness for us.

Second, do not mix the understanding of a covenant of works with a covenant of grace. Christ fulfilled what Adam could not. He fulfilled the Law's requirements.

Christ fulfilled the law as a CoW for us. This Work of Christ is offered to us free/gratis in the CoG.

As the CoW, it cost Him His whole life;as the CoG to us, it costs us nothing.

Something to keep in mind is the fact that the Ten Commandments are an expression of the Covenant of Works. Some on the board might not like the term "republication", but the Ten Commandments are (in some sense) a republication of the Covenant of Works, which Christ came to fulfill, and not abolish.

In my humble opinion, and that of many other Covenant theologians, the law of the CoW (Ten commandments/Moral law) was republished at Sinai, but not the CoW. The CoW itself couldn't be republished at Sinai or the Lord would be expecting sinful Israelites to earn salvation for themselves, or at least prosperity and peace in the Land by keeping the law perfectly.

See other threads on the PB on the subject of the Republication of the Covenant of Works (RoCoW) for this recently revived intramural debate, which In my humble opinion is a debate that should be avoided until there is a clearer grasp of the basics of Covenant Theology in the student's mind.

On the other hand, Jesus, who was born sinless, could pick up the CoW which was broken by Adam, and which had remained a purely hypothetical means of salvation since the Fall, and fulfil it perfectly on behalf of His true people.

Yet, He did this from the overall scope of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works was specifically with Adam. The Covenant of Grace was with Christ, expressed throughout scripture.

Christ fulfilled the law as a CoW on our behalf. This is God's gracious provision to us in the CoG.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew

First, I think there needs to be an understanding of Christ's Passive AND active obedience.

Just to clarify for Michael, Jesus' passive obedience is the theological term for His suffering on our behalf for our sins, as representing us and "carrying" our sins throughout His whole life; His active obedience is the theological term for His whole life of active obedience on our behalf, as representing us and working a perfect life of righteousness for us.

Second, do not mix the understanding of a covenant of works with a covenant of grace. Christ fulfilled what Adam could not. He fulfilled the Law's requirements.

Christ fulfilled the law as a CoW for us. This Work of Christ is offered to us free/gratis in the CoG.

As the CoW, it cost Him His whole life;as the CoG to us, it costs us nothing.

Something to keep in mind is the fact that the Ten Commandments are an expression of the Covenant of Works. Some on the board might not like the term "republication", but the Ten Commandments are (in some sense) a republication of the Covenant of Works, which Christ came to fulfill, and not abolish.

In my humble opinion, and that of many other Covenant theologians, the law of the CoW (Ten commandments/Moral law) was republished at Sinai, but not the CoW. The CoW itself couldn't be republished at Sinai or the Lord would be expecting sinful Israelites to earn salvation for themselves, or at least prosperity and peace in the Land by keeping the law perfectly.

See other threads on the PB on the subject of the Republication of the Covenant of Works (RoCoW) for this recently revived intramural debate, which In my humble opinion is a debate that should be avoided until there is a clearer grasp of the basics of Covenant Theology in the student's mind.

On the other hand, Jesus, who was born sinless, could pick up the CoW which was broken by Adam, and which had remained a purely hypothetical means of salvation since the Fall, and fulfil it perfectly on behalf of His true people.

Yet, He did this from the overall scope of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works was specifically with Adam. The Covenant of Grace was with Christ, expressed throughout scripture.

Christ fulfilled the law as a CoW on our behalf. This is God's gracious provision to us in the CoG.

Richard,

I am not going to get into a semantic war with you. If you want to say "the Law" of the Cow, over using, the CoW, fine, I'll agree (if you are meaning to say that the CoW was made with Adam only, and that CoW with Adam is "re-emphasized" in the Ten Commandments).

From a Westminster Divine on the Two covenants, Edmund Calamy the Elder, writes:

Thus I have showed with whom the two covenants were made, the covenant of works with Adam, a mere man, but the covenant of grace with Jesus Christ both God and man, and also the time when they were made, one with Adam as soon as created, but the other with Jesus Christ from all eternity; also I have showed how all men enter into these two covenants, first, all men enter into Adam’s covenant by nature, but the elect only enter into Christ’s covenant by grace; also I have showed how that Adam by his breach of covenant defiled all his posterity, and also brought guilt upon them for it, but Jesus Christ sanctifies by the holiness of his nature all in his covenant, and acquits them and justifies them from all their guilt by his active and passive obedience, fulfilling the covenant of works perfectly

If this is what you mean, I agree.

The CoW was not made with Christ but with Adam. Christ fulfilled the demands of the CoW perfectly, and has imputed that Righteousness to His people. That is why we are acquitted and justified from all our guilt, because of Christ's active and passive obedience; which is also the CoG made "with Jesus Christ from all eternity".

 

[MW]

From a Westminster Divine on the Two covenants, Edmund Calamy the Elder, writes:

Andrew, I cannot see how the "Two Covenants" is going to be of service to you in this discussion. It clearly says, "Some object and say the Law at Mount Sinai was a covenant of grace, and others say it was a covenant of works, but I shall prove that it was neither, but only given to those that were in covenant as a rule of obedience."

 

[py3ak]

Where I have pause is in seeing where Jesus could be a legitimate substitute for the elect unless He fulfills the role illustrated by the OT kinsmen redeemer. In the OT illustration/type the redeemer is a relative, and this element seems to be too fundamental to the concept to be insignificant in the anti-type. It SEEMS that Christ, as our redeemer must be a kinsman (in some sense) and it has long seemed to me to be why Christ was born of a mortal woman. So that, in a human sense, He was born in the line of man. This doesn't make it true, but it is the way I have generally understood it. Clearly, being born of a woman did not confer upon the Christ original sin - the reason this is true is another subject.

But, is this the full means by which Christ is our kinsman - merely be being a man of flesh? And if our kinsman, then he need NOT be subject to the CoW to fulfill our obligations within it FOR us?

I guess I am asking, was Jesus NOT born under the CoW. but was born as a human without the obligation for obedience to the CoW?

The work of Christ involves freeing his people from the curse of the law - the penalty of the broken covenant of works. He frees his people from that curse as the Mediator of a better covenant, the covenant of grace. So no, I would say that he is not under the covenant of works, because he is the head of a new humanity who are bound together by the covenant of grace. But he does come into relationship to the covenant of works in that he has to release the hold that this covenant has by law upon his people.

In order to this work of redemption, it was necessary that he should be man. See WLC 39:

Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

 

[msortwell]

I want to thank everyone for their contributions thus far. I am continuing to follow the discussion and it is helping me to think through the matter.