Regarding the relationship between the Covenants of Work & Grace

[JD]

I have been in on again, off again discussion about this topic with one of the elders at our church. His contention is that, contra WCF 19.6 all men remain bound by the Covenant of Works, whether elect or not. So in his formulation the elect are granted the reward offered in the Covenant of Works via the Covenant of Grace. That is; that the obedience Christ exhibited fulfilled the CoW for the elect, who are then declared righteous by imputation.

It is very, very close to the confessional position, but he is emphatic in his rejection of the confessional formulation.

My own understanding of the relationship between the Covenants of Works and Grace is outline below, copied verbatim from part of our conversation:

a) We and all created beings owe God our complete and total obedience by virtue of being created. Having been created does not entitle us to any reward as a result. We've been made - our job is to glorify God by being what He made us to be.
b) Mankind specifically has been made in God's image, which means we (again, just by virtue of being created) must perfectly reflect God's holy and righteous character, in all that entails.
c) Perfect completion of that task does not, however, of necessity entitle us to a reward by virtue of the creature/Creator relationship.
d) Yet God condescended to enter into a Covenant of Works with all men, represented federally in Adam. In the CoW, God says to Adam: "If you do the thing you already have to to because I made you in My image and don't mess it up, you together with all men will enter into glory and be rewarded with perfect eternity in My presence. If you mess it up, you and all men will be cursed forever."
e) The CoW is still active - we remain under its curse, after all, but I don't think I understand it to be still available to us. Because we are not morally neutral men like Adam was. Our curse is so complete that it is an insurmountable task, quite literally impossible, for us to return even to the state which would allow us to attempt to fulfill the righteousness required in the CoW.
f) All men in all places at all times are perpetually bound to reflect God's holy and righteous image for the reasons outline above (a&b), without the promise of reward (excepting any covenants God makes with man).
g) Because He is merciful and gracious, God chose to enter into covenant with men again a second time, this time represented federally by Christ, the second Adam. Christ experienced temptation towards sin, just like Adam, but was not born under the curse of the CoW like we are (ie He did not experience original sin). The righteousness required by this covenant (CoG) is the same as that required by the CoW, which is the same as that required by virtue of creation, which are all what they are because God is Who He is. Binding these requirments in covenant is what entitles men, by the grace of God, to the reward of eternal and glorious communion with Him.
h) Christ did what Adam couldn't do, thus earning the reward for Himself and His redeemed through the CoG by His righteousness. He died in our place, thus freeing us from the curse of the law (ie CoW). The latter judically clears us of the guilt imputed to us by the curse of the CoW, returning us judicially to the moral state in which Adam was created. The former grants us the reward by imputing to us His righteousness by grace alone.

My friend's formulation is that the CoW is not accessible to us in our fallen state but becomes accessible to us via the CoG. The CoG does not have any reward attached to it except getting back in to the CoW's good side, which is to say that the legal ramification of the CoG is to repair our end of the CoW, not replace or amend it.

This makes my "justification by grace alone" alarm go off for a reason I can't quite seem to verbalize.

So my question is three-fold:
1. Have I outlined the nature of the relationship between the Covenants correctly? Am I missing anything? Have I misunderstood anything?
2. What actually is the orthodox stance on this specific issue? I've read the WCF, WSC, and WLC cover to cover looking for insight on this issue and haven't come to a clear understanding. I've read all of Vos on Justification and the Ordo Salutis in RD again to try to get at it but I'm not finding a straightforward answer.
3. Is my friend's formulation problematic? Are there implications we might be failing to see?

And I guess also #4 would there be any reccomended reading on the relationship between the Covenants of Work and Grace?

Thank you!

 

[JD]

Bump. I'd love to hear any wisdom or direction you all might have for me!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Your differences are not very clear, which is probably why you have not gotten a response yet. What exactly is he objecting to in 19.6? That deals with the function of the law for those under the covenant of grace. From what you have written, it sounds like he is failing to distinguish between the law and the covenant of works. The law remains our standard of conduct in both. But the reward in the COW is based upon our own righteousness, while the reward in the COG is based upon Christ's imputed righteousness. But without knowing his own particular formulations it's hard to answer your question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So, I'm trying to understand both your view and the unnamed party's view, as mediated by yourself. It seems your friend could hold an odd view (to my lights), or it could be an idea that merely conflates the ongoing validity of the moral law with belief in the CoW proper. As I understand your appraisal of the situation, you think his view intentionally regards true believers as being presently subject (bound) to the legal order set by the CoW; whereas the Confession states clearly that such "not under the law as a covenant of works."

I would say Heb.7:12 teaches that covenants indeed may be replaced. The Covenant of Grace does not simply function as a covenant-supplement to the breach of a more intractable covenant arrangement, an essential works-based relationship; affirming the latter is how I read your representation of your friend's view. If it is his view, I regret to say that by classic covenant theology lights it basically presents as mono-covenantalism.

This view alleges in essence there is one original covenant, and it partakes of both grace-and-works principles. "Condescension" is replaced by "grace;" while a kind of "congruent" obedience is received in lieu of incomparably perfect righteousness not possible for a finite creature. Assuming your friend's view comports somewhat with this beginning, it might make sense then is he sees the provision of Christ through a recast CoG supplement as the divine response for man's fall (from grace). Through it, there's a return of sorts for believers into the original covenant arrangement, a restoration. Under the most optimistic treatment, all the failures of CoW expectations are covered by the sacrifice of Christ, including original sin, past actual sin, and current/future sins.

Nevertheless, the essential covenant from the outset remains in effect. Put crassly, Christ's work as the sum of the CoG functions in much the same way as the RCC concept of the donum superadditum. This doctrine claims that Adam's original creation nature lacked inherent power to resist sin, so it had to have divine grace for that end; in the fall, that grace was lost leaving man with entropic tendency away from God thereafter; participation in RCC sacramental life now gives the new man access to the same grace unto life, grace that is the result of Christ's work. In RCC theology, man in Christ has been restored to his original creation. The RCC idea sounds awfully close to the theology that might eschew RCC sacramentalism, yet maintains that the original CoW constitution is that by which men ought to live.

Jesus does not work for Moses. The CoG does not offer a repair for the CoW effecting a monocovenant, a symbiosis of the concepts of grace and works. Christ came into the world, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those condemned under the law. He fulfilled the conditions of the CoW for his people, thus removing its penalty. So far as the CoW goes, true believers are not under it, full stop. We are in a completely new covenant arrangement. I think you may be correct in your worry that the alternative presents a threat (of some kind) to the doctrine of justification--it depends on how far some people are willing to take their notion, and into what form they encourage its development. It doesn't help the Christian if for example, turning aside from RCC sacramental grace, he replaces it with "faith" as a different sort of "substance" required for fulfilling some sort of obedience demonstration.

If regarding the Christian as though he is now in the state of creation (with some further assistance ongoing) leads one to put obedience ahead of faith, to put more stock in oneself and the quality of life manifested as a child of God than in Christ and his obedience at every point, this view will ultimately be toxic. The real choice is between Adam as one's federal head, or Christ. It is a choice of covenants.

 

[Romans678]

Bump for notifications. Great discussion gentlemen.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Barcellos has a helpful book on covenants from a Baptist perspective that thoroughly discusses the Covenant of Works. It's a bit esoteric for the simple-minded like myself, but it does discuss the CoW (and other covenants), in detail.
I have some reservations about his apparent rigid separation between the Abrahamic covenant and the New covenant (it's a perpetual discussion with the "1689 Federalists"), but it certainly goes in-depth into the CoW. You could do worse.

 

[JD]

Your differences are not very clear, which is probably why you have not gotten a response yet. What exactly is he objecting to in 19.6? That deals with the function of the law for those under the covenant of grace. From what you have written, it sounds like he is failing to distinguish between the law and the covenant of works. The law remains our standard of conduct in both. But the reward in the COW is based upon our own righteousness, while the reward in the COG is based upon Christ's imputed righteousness. But without knowing his own particular formulations it's hard to answer your question.

I appreciate that feedback, thank you. In an attempt to avoid copying pages upon pages of conversation, I was trying to summarize the crux of the disagreement. I suppose I did not do so adequately. In rereading WCF 19 I can now see why. My friend is a NCT guy, so his objections to the abiding validity of the law are several.

The disagreement/misunderstanding is about how the COG relates to the COW. The reward we are given is from Christ's imputed righteousness. Everyone agrees here. But why does Christ's righteousness merit a reward? It's not as if any righteousness, even perfect righteousness, of necessity earns one a reward. Indeed, there must be righteousness in the form of "covenantal obedience." This is what I understand WCF 7.1 to be saying.

So (in an attempt to follow the traditional Reformed view of it), I am trying to say that there must be in some way a second, equivalent "Covenant of Works" in which the federal head is changed from Adam to Christ. Successful completion of the "covental obedience" by Christ attains the reward, which is imputed to us. This is incorporated into the CoG, whereby sinners are saved. My friend would want to say that the CoG allows believers to attain the reward from the orginal COW, which Christ perfectly fulfilled by his righteousness. The difference is minuscule, I will admit.

 

[JD]

Barcellos has a helpful book on covenants from a Baptist perspective that thoroughly discusses the Covenant of Works. It's a bit esoteric for the simple-minded like myself, but it does discuss the CoW (and other covenants), in detail.
I have some reservations about his apparent rigid separation between the Abrahamic covenant and the New covenant (it's a perpetual discussion with the "1689 Federalists"), but it certainly goes in-depth into the CoW. You could do worse.

Would that be this one? I've read Getting the Garden Right, which I found quite helpful.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Would that be this one? I've read Getting the Garden Right, which I found quite helpful.

There is another one I was loaned, whose title I can't remember exactly enough to search for, but it doesn't seem to be in the RHB catalog. If I'd known how hard it was to find, I'd have taken a photo of it: it was in my hands just a couple of days ago.
But I suspect that "Getting the Garden Right" contains much the same thoughts as the relevant bits of the other book.

 

[De Jager]

I appreciate that feedback, thank you. In an attempt to avoid copying pages upon pages of conversation, I was trying to summarize the crux of the disagreement. I suppose I did not do so adequately. In rereading WCF 19 I can now see why. My friend is a NCT guy, so his objections to the abiding validity of the law are several.

The disagreement/misunderstanding is about how the COG relates to the COW. The reward we are given is from Christ's imputed righteousness. Everyone agrees here. But why does Christ's righteousness merit a reward? It's not as if any righteousness, even perfect righteousness, of necessity earns one a reward. Indeed, there must be righteousness in the form of "covenantal obedience." This is what I understand WCF 7.1 to be saying.

So (in an attempt to follow the traditional Reformed view of it), I am trying to say that there must be in some way a second, equivalent "Covenant of Works" in which the federal head is changed from Adam to Christ. Successful completion of the "covental obedience" by Christ attains the reward, which is imputed to us. This is incorporated into the CoG, whereby sinners are saved. My friend would want to say that the CoG allows believers to attain the reward from the orginal COW, which Christ perfectly fulfilled by his righteousness. The difference is minuscule, I will admit.

I am by no means an expert, and you will no doubt receive better responses than from me, but something about this doesn't seem right.

Aren't the rewards we receive under the covenant of grace actually greater than the rewards offered in the covenant of works? It is my understanding that what we receive in Christ is better than what Adam (would have) received in Eden.

Furthermore, when Christ died (and us with him), did we not actually already receive the penalty of the covenant of works (death), so that this covenant is done as far as we are concerned? If we have died, how can this covenant apply to us any longer?

Again, I am no expert, and perhaps someone could also help me realize where my understanding is deficient.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Aren't the rewards we receive under the covenant of grace actually greater than the rewards offered in the covenant of works? It is my understanding that what we receive in Christ is better than what Adam (would have) received in Eden.

Furthermore, when Christ died (and us with him), did we not actually already receive the penalty of the covenant of works (death), so that this covenant is done as far as we are concerned? If we have died, how can this covenant apply to us any longer?

In re. of the second item, this is exactly correct. We have died to the law, Rom.7:6; Gal.2:19-20, "law" which is shorthand for the CoW. Paul uses the analogy of marriage in Rom.7 to illustrate his point: once the covenant-penalty has been fulfilled, the covenant is no more, its power has been exhausted.

As to reward, let us distinguish between 1) the reward of continuing in life consequent to obedience--positive, personal, perpetual; and 2) the completion of covenant probation that we infer from the nature of the original CoW and its promise. So long as failure remained possible, the CoW included tension that could only be relieved by way of its curse, or else some promotion of man to a state where failure was not possible. We see in the angels who did not fall with Satan beings who are confirmed in glorious estate. Adam in a confirmed state of righteousness would be beyond any threat of the curse of the CoW, meaning those original terms would be superseded. The state of glory is beyond the state of original creation.

In Christ and the CoG, the terms and the curse of the CoW are fulfilled in him, and for those in him they are nullified. Scripture teaches that so complete is our identification with Christ and his success, that his place in glory is now also the destiny of those who are found in him. The reward of the CoG is not for Christ's people to be put back into status quo ante, but to receive gratis his glory purely on his account, in virtue of nothing but our union with him. Glory is his reward, of which we are made partakers.

 

[JD]

In Christ and the CoG, the terms and the curse of the CoW are fulfilled in him, and for those in him they are nullified. Scripture teaches that so complete is our identification with Christ and his success, that his place in glory is now also the destiny of those who are found in him. The reward of the CoG is not for Christ's people to be put back into status quo ante, but to receive gratis his glory purely on his account, in virtue of nothing but our union with him. Glory is his reward, of which we are made partakers.

Thank you for your responses Rev. Buchanan. This is all very helpful. The two bolded sentences are where my continuing confusion rests.

In the first, if "the terms and the curse of the CoW are fulfilled in Christ," does that not mean that the CoW remains the mechanism by which God brings a people to Himself? The CoG unites us inseperably to Christ, and His fulfillment of the CoW earns Him a reward, which we partake of? Or ought we say that the terms of the CoW are now made a part of the CoG?

In the second, I would want to say that glory was also Adam's reward, of which we would have become partakers upon successful completion of the covenant probation. For the same reason we are now all born partakers of his curse. So this dynamic is not "new" in the CoG. Would that be correct?

 

[De Jager]

Thank you for your responses Rev. Buchanan. This is all very helpful. The two bolded sentences are where my continuing confusion rests.

In the first, if "the terms and the curse of the CoW are fulfilled in Christ," does that not mean that the CoW remains the mechanism by which God brings a people to Himself? The CoG unites us inseperably to Christ, and His fulfillment of the CoW earns Him a reward, which we partake of? Or ought we say that the terms of the CoW are now made a part of the CoG?

In the second, I would want to say that glory was also Adam's reward, of which we would have become partakers upon successful completion of the covenant probation. For the same reason we are now all born partakers of his curse. So this dynamic is not "new" in the CoG. Would that be correct?

He is saying that we died to the covenant of works. Christ died and bore the punishment outlined in the covenant of works. As in a marriage, when one party dies, the covenant is no longer in force. For those of us in Christ, the CoW is done and dealt with. What rewards we receive are as a result of the promises made in the covenant of grace, which eclipse those offered in the CoW. For example, where in the CoW is it promised that the holy spirit would be poured out on God's people? Nowhere. That's a promise of the CoG, which we receive, in Christ.

That's my take, anyways.

 

[JD]

He is saying that we died to the covenant of works. Christ died and bore the punishment outlined in the covenant of works. As in a marriage, when one party dies, the covenant is no longer in force. For those of us in Christ, the CoW is done and dealt with.

I agree with you, to be clear. I understand what the Confession says and I do not think highly enough of myself to disagree with it without just cause.

But the conversation which sparked this question focuses on this bolded part. This is what I'm seeking clarification on. If the CoW needed to be "dealt with," does that mean it remains the principle by which God allows a people to "earn" (covenentally and federally) glory? Did Christ only deal with the CoW by taking on its curse for us? Did He also fulfill its righteousness for us? And if so does that mean we all remain under it in much the same way as we were under it in Adam?

(I say this with reverence) Why does Christ's righteousness matter, if righteousness in itself does not merit reward (WCF 7.1)?

By what covenant does Christ's righteous obedience merit a reward? Works or Grace? I say Grace. My friend says Works - that the "reward" of the CoG is entrance into glory via the CoW, fulfilled in Christ for us.

I am not trying to be dense. The respect I have for this man could not be overstated, and so I am trying my best to understand.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for your responses Rev. Buchanan. This is all very helpful. The two bolded sentences are where my continuing confusion rests.

In the first, if "the terms and the curse of the CoW are fulfilled in Christ," does that not mean that the CoW remains the mechanism by which God brings a people to Himself? The CoG unites us inseperably to Christ, and His fulfillment of the CoW earns Him a reward, which we partake of? Or ought we say that the terms of the CoW are now made a part of the CoG?

In the second, I would want to say that glory was also Adam's reward, of which we would have become partakers upon successful completion of the covenant probation. For the same reason we are now all born partakers of his curse. So this dynamic is not "new" in the CoG. Would that be correct?

I think perhaps that here, with the questions you raise, is where a recognition of the eternal inter-Trinitarian plan or covenant of redemption is helpful. In the covenant of redemption, sometimes called pactum salutis, in the divine mind is formulated a design of bringing many sons to glory by saving them through the work of a Mediator. Various passages of Scripture have been adduced, such as Zech.6:13 speaking of "the counsel of peace" between the LORD and his BRANCH. Is.53 rehearses the intertwined purpose and activity of the LORD and his Servant. But I find Is.49 to be a most explicit testimony to the eternal plan.

The point is: the CoG is more essential, more basic to the divine design for the world than the CoW. The CoW turns out revealed to be instrumental unto a greater end. The CoG isn't brought in as something in service of the CoW; that gets the priority backwards. Christ makes use of the CoW--which is a real arrangement for humanity set in place under Adam--for his expression of obedience (an obedience he does not need to exert in any sense for himself) that is then donated to the elect who lack it in terms of that CoW. In this way, all that they owe in terms of the CoW is exhausted, it is done, their obligation is terminated.

The Son's voluntary undertaking of the covenant of redemption includes him laying down his life for his people, and as his reward he receives resurrection--for himself and all united to him. He receives as if a gift his own glory back again, enhanced in a sense by the praises of the redeemed. He receives a forever-people beholden to him and thankful past all expression, who are made partakers of his glorious reward. There is no restarting of any CoW "mechanism" in relation to them, for there is no work on the table obligating the Son.

As for Adam and his reward: in terms of the CoW under which he labored, there was no reward of glory. This is important, that we distinguish between Adam's duty to personal, entire, perpetual obedience for continued life, which for all we know might have been ordained to last eons; and God's self-determined closure of the probation, which should then be followed by some sort of "covenant of glory." The probation IS the Covenant of Works, and there is no glory-reward contained IN the CoW. Adam could not envision "enough" obedience that would bring him to a terminal fulfillment of the CoW. That blessing of life within the CoW was forever contingent on his obedience.

If Adam remained unfallen but continued for long ages in the probation covenant, and had we his children come from him under those conditions, we would be now born partakers of his blessing still contingent on obedience (probably his and ours both combined). We share in his curse because we are born federally bound to him according to (fallen) human nature. If Adam had successfully passed his probation before his children were born (all quite hypothetical), he would have been instated in a glory-covenant of some kind, and we his offspring might well be made the beneficiaries of that different arrangement.

I think I have addressed the questions, but if not then you're welcome to reopen the inquiry.

 

[De Jager]

I agree with you, to be clear. I understand what the Confession says and I do not think highly enough of myself to disagree with it without just cause.

But the conversation which sparked this question focuses on this bolded part. This is what I'm seeking clarification on. If the CoW needed to be "dealt with," does that mean it remains the principle by which God allows a people to "earn" (covenentally and federally) glory? Did Christ only deal with the CoW by taking on its curse for us? Did He also fulfill its righteousness for us? And if so does that mean we all remain under it in much the same way as we were under it in Adam?

(I say this with reverence) Why does Christ's righteousness matter, if righteousness in itself does not merit reward (WCF 7.1)?

By what covenant does Christ's righteous obedience merit a reward? Works or Grace? I say Grace. My friend says Works - that the "reward" of the CoG is entrance into glory via the CoW, fulfilled in Christ for us.

I am not trying to be dense. The respect I have for this man could not be overstated, and so I am trying my best to understand.

It appears I could use some correction. I hope Rev. Buchanan can provide some clarity. The following is from RC Sproul:

"Without Christ’s active obedience to the covenant of works, there is no reason for imputation, there is no ground for justification. If we take away the covenant of works, we take away the active obedience of Jesus. If we take away the active obedience of Jesus, we take away the imputation of His righteousness to us."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/covenant-works

It appears as though Sproul is saying that Christ has dealt with the CoW in both the negative (taking on the consequences) and the positive (fulfilling the obligations) aspects. I'm not sure how this does or doesn't jive with what I've written above but if what Sproul is saying is true, what I've written is likely deficient. So if I have to take a stab at how the CoW and the CoG relate, I'd say the following:

The CoG is a covenant which in itself promises the fulfillment of the CoW, and more. Thus, in the CoG, God graciously promises to provide a lamb (atonement, passive obedience to the CoW) and also a righteous servant (active obedience to the CoW). Thus for a Christian, since we are in Christ, and thus participants in the CoG, the CoW is fulfilled and dealt with. But we also receive the benefits of the CoG that go beyond the CoW: the forgiveness of our sins, the indwelling of the Spirit, and eternal glory in the new heavens and the new earth, none of which are promised in the CoW.

Does this make more sense? I'm learning just like you!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I appreciate that feedback, thank you. In an attempt to avoid copying pages upon pages of conversation, I was trying to summarize the crux of the disagreement. I suppose I did not do so adequately. In rereading WCF 19 I can now see why. My friend is a NCT guy, so his objections to the abiding validity of the law are several.

The disagreement/misunderstanding is about how the COG relates to the COW. The reward we are given is from Christ's imputed righteousness. Everyone agrees here. But why does Christ's righteousness merit a reward? It's not as if any righteousness, even perfect righteousness, of necessity earns one a reward. Indeed, there must be righteousness in the form of "covenantal obedience." This is what I understand WCF 7.1 to be saying.

So (in an attempt to follow the traditional Reformed view of it), I am trying to say that there must be in some way a second, equivalent "Covenant of Works" in which the federal head is changed from Adam to Christ. Successful completion of the "covental obedience" by Christ attains the reward, which is imputed to us. This is incorporated into the CoG, whereby sinners are saved. My friend would want to say that the CoG allows believers to attain the reward from the orginal COW, which Christ perfectly fulfilled by his righteousness. The difference is minuscule, I will admit.

Thanks that does help clarify it some. In Reformed theology, the "equivalent" COW for Christ was the Covenant of Redemption, made in eternity past, which promised more than the Covenant of Works in Adam. Bruce explained that well above. That would be the "covenantal obedience" under which Christ inherited his reward (and ours in union with him). Another way to put it, is that the COW in Adam provided the legal framework for Christ to fulfill what Adam failed to keep for us, but the reward promised to Christ was greater than that of Adam. Adam was created in fellowship with God under the COW and the reward of life upon completion of his probation would have been great for sure. But the reward for Christ was greater because it included our salvation from sin by grace, and the demonstration of God's love through the death of Christ, the gifts of adoption and the Holy Spirit, among other greater blessings. Hope that helps.

In the Confession, the concept of the "covenant of redemption" is explained in Ch. 8 on Christ the Mediator, though the term is not used. The term "covenant of redemption" did not come into more common usage until later, though the divines were familiar with it. At that time; the debate was whether or not to consider the COR as part of the COG or as something more distinct upon which the COG was based.

 

[JD]

I think perhaps that here, with the questions you raise, is where a recognition of the eternal inter-Trinitarian plan or covenant of redemption is helpful. In the covenant of redemption, sometimes called pactum salutis, in the divine mind is formulated a design of bringing many sons to glory by saving them through the work of a Mediator. Various passages of Scripture have been adduced, such as Zech.6:13 speaking of "the counsel of peace" between the LORD and his BRANCH. Is.53 rehearses the intertwined purpose and activity of the LORD and his Servant. But I find Is.49 to be a most explicit testimony to the eternal plan.

The point is: the CoG is more essential, more basic to the divine design for the world than the CoW. The CoW turns out revealed to be instrumental unto a greater end. The CoG isn't brought in as something in service of the CoW; that gets the priority backwards. Christ makes use of the CoW--which is a real arrangement for humanity set in place under Adam--for his expression of obedience (an obedience he does not need to exert in any sense for himself) that is then donated to the elect who lack it in terms of that CoW. In this way, all that they owe in terms of the CoW is exhausted, it is done, their obligation is terminated.

The Son's voluntary undertaking of the covenant of redemption includes him laying down his life for his people, and as his reward he receives resurrection--for himself and all united to him. He receives as if a gift his own glory back again, enhanced in a sense by the praises of the redeemed. He receives a forever-people beholden to him and thankful past all expression, who are made partakers of his glorious reward. There is no restarting of any CoW "mechanism" in relation to them, for there is no work on the table obligating the Son.

As for Adam and his reward: in terms of the CoW under which he labored, there was no reward of glory. This is important, that we distinguish between Adam's duty to personal, entire, perpetual obedience for continued life, which for all we know might have been ordained to last eons; and God's self-determined closure of the probation, which should then be followed by some sort of "covenant of glory." The probation IS the Covenant of Works, and there is no glory-reward contained IN the CoW. Adam could not envision "enough" obedience that would bring him to a terminal fulfillment of the CoW. That blessing of life within the CoW was forever contingent on his obedience.

If Adam remained unfallen but continued for long ages in the probation covenant, and had we his children come from him under those conditions, we would be now born partakers of his blessing still contingent on obedience (probably his and ours both combined). We share in his curse because we are born federally bound to him according to (fallen) human nature. If Adam had successfully passed his probation before his children were born (all quite hypothetical), he would have been instated in a glory-covenant of some kind, and we his offspring might well be made the beneficiaries of that different arrangement.

I think I have addressed the questions, but if not then you're welcome to reopen the inquiry.

You have indeed and thank you so much for taking the time to do so. I see now where my misunderstanding lay.

 

[JD]

Thanks that does help clarify it some. In Reformed theology, the "equivalent" COW for Christ was the Covenant of Redemption, made in eternity past, which promised more than the Covenant of Works in Adam. Bruce explained that well above. That would be the "covenantal obedience" under which Christ inherited his reward (and ours in union with him). Another way to put it, is that the COW in Adam provided the legal framework for Christ to fulfill what Adam failed to keep for us, but the reward promised to Christ was greater than that of Adam. Adam was created in fellowship with God under the COW and the reward of life upon completion of his probation would have been great for sure. But the reward for Christ was greater because it included our salvation from sin by grace, and the demonstration of God's love through the death of Christ, the gifts of adoption and the Holy Spirit, among other greater blessings. Hope that helps.

In the Confession, the concept of the "covenant of redemption" is explained in Ch. 8 on Christ the Mediator, though the term is not used. The term "covenant of redemption" did not come into more common usage until later, though the divines were familiar with it. At that time; the debate was whether or not to consider the COR as part of the COG or as something more distinct upon which the COG was based.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply! This makes perfect sense.

I now realize that I had not correctly placed the CoR in my own understanding.