An Analysis of the Covenant of Redemption 4

IV. The work of the Father

In examining the Father's work, we will consider separately (A) the commands that function as the covenant's conditions, (B) the promises of the covenant, and (C) the warranty of the covenant. The Father in electing the Lord Jesus to be Surety, Mediator, and Savior, presents Him to the elect and gives them to Him so that He may merit and accomplish salvation for them. To this end He presented several conditions to Him and commanded Him to fulfill them. “The Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting” (John 12:49-50a); “This commandment have I received of My Father” (John 10:18).

(A) These commands, being the conditions, include among others the following:

First, that the Son would assume the nature of the sinner, but without sin. “A body hast Thou prepared Me” (Heb. 10:5).

Secondly, that He having assumed the identical nature of elect sinners, would become their Substitute. This meant that He would remove their sins from them and take their sins for His account. To accomplish this, He, being a divine Person and thus above the law, would place Himself under the law, a law which demanded the punishment of transgressors and perfect obedience to gain a right to eternal life. “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4).

Thirdly, that on their behalf He would bear all the punishment which their sins had merited. He would suffer, die, and rise from the dead. “No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father” (John 10:18); “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23).

Fourthly, that on their behalf He would have to fulfill all righteousness in order to make them righteous. “So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom 5:19); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. ... He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:19, 21).

And fifthly, that He would make the elect partakers of this merited salvation by declaring the gospel to them, regenerating them, granting them faith, preserving them, raising them from the dead, and taking them into heaven. The execution of this great work would rest upon Christ's shoulders. “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39). This is a general presentation of some of the conditions of the covenant.

(B) God added promises to these conditions which are given in reference to both the Surety and the elect.

First, the Father promised that God’s good pleasure would prosper through Him. “When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand” (Isa 53:10).

Secondly, the Father promised that He would be King over all the elect, not merely Jews, but also Gentiles. “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion. Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Ps 2:6,8); “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. ... All nations shall serve Him” (Ps 72:8,11).

Thirdly, the Father promised that He would have power over all creatures in order to govern them for the benefit of His elect. “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18); “For He hath put all things under His feet” (1 Cor 15:27).

Fourthly, the Father promised that He would be glorified in a way which would be observed and acknowledged by the creatures. “When He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3); “I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne” (Rev. 3:21).

Fifthly, the Father promised that He would be Judge of heaven and earth. “And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man” (John 5:27); “Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained” (Acts 17:31).

Sixthly, the Father promised to Him that the elect would receive all the benefits of the covenant of grace through Him: forgiveness of sin, reconciliation, adoption, peace, sanctification, and eternal glory. “... It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32); “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (Rom 8:32).

(C) God confirmed these promises to the Son by means of both sacraments and oaths.

(1) He confirmed this to Him by oath. “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4); “Once have I sworn by My holiness that I will not lie unto David [Christ]” (Ps 89:35).

(2) He sealed this to Him by means of the Old and New Testament sacraments.

(3) God assured Him of this by means of extraordinary and immediate revelations and declarations. “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). This declaration is repeated in Matthew 17:5. God was not only pleased with His Person, but also with His qualifications as Surety and Mediator, and in His work of redemption. This then is the work of the Father as the one Party of the Covenant.

An Analysis of the Covenant of Redemption 3

III. The Existence of the Covenant of Redemption Scripturally Verified

Flavel's sermon, not to mention my post from a few days ago, more than amply demonstrate that there was such a covenant made between the Father and the Lord Jesus. But lest that evidence seem lacking, I wish to elicit more Scriptural proof before proceeding with the subject. We can further verify this covenant between the Father and the Son on behalf of the elect as follows:

First, in Psalm 89:28, 34 it is recorded, “My mercy will I keep for Him for evermore, and My covenant shall stand fast with Him. My covenant will I not break.” It is clear that the covenant between God the Father and the Lord Jesus is being spoken of here. It is a known fact that the Psalms contain many references to the Lord Jesus, and that David in many respects was a type of Christ. In fact, Christ is referred to as David in Hosea 3:5. In this Psalm, David is mentioned, and the Lord Jesus Christ as He is typified by David.

I say that this Psalm also refers to the Lord Jesus, because:

(1) Everything recorded recorded up to verse 37 applies most eminently to the Lord Jesus. Other passages call Him the Elect of God (Ps 89:3; Isa 42:1), the Holy One of God (vs. 19; Luke 1:35), One that is mighty (vs. 19; Ps 45:8), the Anointed One who was anointed with oil (vs. 20; Ps 45:8), the firstborn of God (vs. 27; Heb 1:6), the King of kings (vs. 27; Rev 19:16), One whose kingdom extends over the entire earth (vs. 25; Ps 72:8), and One whose kingdom will endure as long as the sun and moon will be (vss. 36-37; Ps 72:5).

(2) Furthermore, not everything in this psalm applies to David, such as being the firstborn Son of God (vs. 27), being the King of kings (vs. 27), and possessor of an eternal kingdom (vs. 36). Whatever is recorded here that can be applied to David can only apply in an extremely limited sense. It is only to Christ that these descriptions can be adequately ascribed.

(3) The last part of the psalm, beginning with verse 38, presents us with a contrast between David’s kingdom and the Messiah's. This contrast points out especially the fact that Christ's kingdom will extend over the entire earth and endure as long as the sun and the moon. David's kingdom, on the other hand, would come to an end.

(4) There is no doubt that verses 26-37 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16 refer to the exact same historical event. The subject matter is identical. Yet, the New Testament explicitly and expressly applies the words of 2 Samuel 7 to Christ (cf. Acts 13:22; Heb 1:5). Therefore the same must hold true for verses 26-37 of this psalm.

When we take all of this into consideration we see the following: The Psalms often refer to Christ, and David is often a type of Christ in the Psalms. Everything in this Psalm applies eminently to Christ, but not everything applies to David. Indeed, David's and Christ's kingdoms are contrasted in verses 25-36. Christ is said to have an everlasting kingdom, while David's, according to vs. 38, would be destroyed. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that Christ is mentioned here and He is said to be in a covenant engagement with the Lord, and thus it is evident that there is a covenant between the Lord and Christ.

We have already mentioned Zechariah 6:12-13, but perhaps some further remarks are appropriate. Some have argued that the "two" refer to Jews and Gentiles, or to the two offices of Christ as priest and king. It seems to me that both views can be easily dispatched with.

First of all, we can't understand "both" to be referring to Jews and Gentiles because, although both are included in the New Testament Church, not the least mention is made here of either of them. We cannot legitimately or with any warrant whatsoever insert the idea here. The pronoun "them" must refer to the two who were previously mentioned. Those two are none other than God and the Branch.

Neither should we understand "both" to be a reference to the two offices of Christ, viz., priest and king. It is true that these two offices were not united in one person in Israel. A king was neither permitted to be a priest, nor a priest to be a king. Judah and Levi and their respective offices had to remain distinct. However, in Jesus they coalesce in one person. Indeed these two offices coalesce in the execution of His mediatorial office. But we still may not therefore conclude from this text that the reference is to these two offices.

There are several reasons why this cannot be true:

(1) Christ is one Person, and there is mention of two.

(2) There is no reference here to two offices, but merely to “being a priest” and “ruling.”

(3) Christ has three offices and all three function in unison for building the Lord’s temple. Therefore, if the reference was meant to apply to His offices, it should say, "between these three.”

(4) There can be no mutual consultation between offices since this as this is the activity of persons. Such consultation occurred instead between individuals who held the three Old Testament offices. Hence we should not understand the reference to be to the office of priest and king.

It is plain therefore when we look at the text that "them both" refers to God and the Branch. The text says, "Thus, speaketh the Lord of hosts ... the BRANCH ... He shall build the temple of the Lord.” This is the Messiah's work. He who will build the Lord’s temple, that is His congregation, will be endowed with the necessary qualifications: to rule and to be a priest. This tells us that rulership and priesthood are descriptive of the Branch who would accomplish this work, which further reinforces our contention that the reference is not to offices. He, the Branch, will be engaged in the Lord’s work to which He had been commissioned, which is nothing other than the building of the Lord’s temple. This required mutual understanding and consent as well as consultation, counsel, and wisdom. Thus the Father and the Son agreed to promote the peace of the elect. Not only so, but they further agreed about the manner of execution, that is, it would be accomplished by the Prince of Peace, the Branch, who had the necessary qualifications.

As we stated before, Luke 22:29 says, “And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me.” It does not say (horizo), nor (diatatto), but (diatithemai). This word means as much as to promise something to someone by way of testament or covenant. From this word diatheke is derived, which means “testament” or “covenant.” Thus, the verb “to appoint” includes the idea of covenant, and by virtue of this covenant He would receive the kingdom. Of course, this is explicitly taught in Galatian 3:16-17, where it says, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,” etc. Here we have the covenant, the promises, and the fact that these have been made to Christ, as well as the fact that this covenant has been confirmed in Christ. Therefore, there is a covenant between God and Christ.

Next much of the language of Scripture implies such a covenant. For instance “My God,” and “My Servant.” That was the promise of the covenant. “And (I) will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer 31:33); “... My servants ...” (Isa 65:13-14). Members of the covenant, by virtue of the covenant, call God their God (Deut 26:17-18). The Lord Jesus mad frequent use of the same manner of speech: My God, My Father. “I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God” (John 20:17).

This covenant is further implied by the fact that Christ is clearly called “surety” in both the Old and the New Testaments. Think of Hebrews 7:22, where it is stated, “By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better testament.” No one can be a surety unless there is a contract and a covenant between the creditor and the surety of the debtor. The creditor must be satisfied with, and consent to the fact that such and such a person will function as the surety. The surety must obligate himself to the creditor to pay the debt. Since the Lord Jesus has become Surety by virtue of mutual consent and approval, this shows that there is a covenant between God and Christ.

Even further, we might point out that whenever have conditions, commands, promises and sacraments on one hand, and then on the other hand we have consent and acceptance of conditions and promises, satisfaction of the conditions, and a demand for the promised benefits upon satisfaction of the conditions, we have incontrovertible reference to a covenant. All of this exists between God and Christ, thus demonstrating that there is a covenant between.

This is what I will attempt to demonstrate in the next few posts. We will do this, not simply to prove this doctrine, but to describe the nature of this covenant.

An Analysis of the Covenant of Redemption 2

II. The persons on whose behalf and for whose benefit this covenant is made.

We hinted at this briefly in the last paragraph of yesterday's post. The beneficiaries of this covenant are those who are elected in Christ. Of the elect, Christ says, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me.” For this reason, they are said to be written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 21:27).

In an manner wholly consistent with His holiness, God would permit that they would sin by their own free will and therefore be concluded in sin. Because of this, they would be by nature children of wrath. It was necessary that there be a Surety to satisfy God’s justice so that the infinite mercy and grace of God could be bestowed upon them in freeing from them this state and bringing them to salvation. The Father gave the elect to His Son as Surety. The Son accepted them and became Surety for all of them, and for them alone. He wrote their names in the book of life and promised to accomplish His Father’s will and good pleasure in bringing them to salvation.

Without going off on a tangent, it is here that the "L" of TULIP becomes so absolutely clear. I think of Owen's arguments in his "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." Can Christ ask for something in prayer and not get it? Of course not! Scripture tells us that Christ is interceding for us in Heaven. Now, to put it quite bluntly, if Christ intercedes for those who will eventually perish, (and millions certainly already have perished) doesn't this mean that Christ asks for much in prayer that he is never given? This is sheer blasphemy. Christ Himself says, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me" (John 11:41, 42). The book of Hebrews ties Christ's intercession to His Mediatiorial office. Moreover, Christ Himself, in His high priestly prayer, specifically says, "I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me" (John 17:9).

Much fruitless speculation has been made regarding the infinite value of Christ's death. We have probably all heard something like: Christ's death was sufficient to atone for a million, billion worlds." Or, "Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." All I can say is that Scripture NEVER goes there. Scripture never deals in possibilities. Scripture always and only deals with what Christ's atoning sacrifice actually accomplished, not what it could possibly have accomplished. We must not impugn God's wisdom. He did what He did in the atonement precisely because His wisdom saw that as the most perfect and glorifying way to accomplish what He wanted done. Scripture does not give us license to go beyond that.

An Analysis of the Covenant of Redemption 1

In analyzing the Covenant of Redemption, we will consider five things:

I. The parties in this covenant

II. The persons concerning whom, and for whose benefit, this covenant has been made

III. The reality of this covenant transaction

IV. The Father's work, which we divide into (A) the commands and conditions of this covenant, (B) the promises related to the fulfillment of these conditions, and (C) the confirmation of these promises by oath and sacraments.

V. The Son's work, which we will divide into (A) His acceptance of the conditions and the promises, (B) His fulfillment of the conditions, and (C) His demand based on these confirmed promises.

I. The Parties of the Covenant of Redemption

First of all we have to consider the covenanting parties. They are God the Father on one side and the Lord Jesus Christ on the other. It will probably be easier to comprehend this matter if we primarily consider the execution of this covenant rather than the decree that it proceeds from, maintaining that the manner in which the Lord executes it in this time state is consistent with the manner in which He has eternally decreed it. Nevertheless we treat this covenant as one of God's intrinsic works, because Scripture repeatedly presents it that way. Concerning Christ it is stated that He “was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet 1:20). The elect are chosen in Him (Eph 1:4), and grace has been given them “in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim 1:9). Everything Christ encountered in this world happened to Him according to the eternal decree, foreknowledge, and determinate counsel of God (cf. Ps 2:7; Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23).

By virtue of this eternal covenant there has been an eternal relationship between the Son and His suretyship (Heb. 5:6 - "You are a priest forever..."). He demonstrated this already in His government of the Old Testament church immediately after the fall, prior to His incarnation.

This raises a question: Since the Father and the Son are one in essence and thus have one will and one objective, how can there possibly be a covenant transaction between the two, because such a transaction would require the mutual involvement of two wills? Aren't we separating the Persons of the Godhead too much? To this I reply that as far as Personhood is concerned the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. From this consideration the one divine will can be viewed from a twofold perspective. It is the Father’s will to redeem by the agency of the second Person as Surety, and it is the will of the Son to redeem by His own agency as Surety.

This is as good a place as any to note also that another proof for this doctrine can be seen in the fact of the oneness of essence which obtains with the Three Person of the Trinity. There is no conflict or absence of peace between them. So what need would there be for a "counsel of peace" between the Father and the Son? Christ Himself said, "I and the Father are one." But if, as Hebrews 5:6 says, Christ has eternally occupied the role of priest, then He has eternally had the office of Surety for the elect, even before they were created. It is in view of the redemption that would be accomplished in time that Christ and the Father mutually covenanted with each other.

Biblical Demonstration of the Covenant of Redemption

My previous posts on the Covenant of Redemption were a sermon by John Flavel. He analyzes Isaiah 49:1-6 where the Father and Son agree upon the conditions of the Covenant of Redemption and the obligations each has to the other Person in the fulfilling of this covenant. I highly recommend this sermon by Flavel.

Those from a non-Reformed background, especially an Arminian background, will be largely unaware that the Scripture teaches any such thing as a covenant made before time between the Father and the Son regarding man’s salvation. One need only look at the many ‘Servant’ passages in Isaiah to see that there was an agreement between Father and Son, prior to the Lord Jesus’ incarnation which delineated the stipulations of redemption. Again, Flavel is helpful here as he lays out the various duties the Father and Son agreed to undertake and how each Person minutely and punctually performed the agreed upon stipulations. Isaiah’s “servant” texts are full of such details.

Indeed, the Gospels are replete with Christ’s acknowledgements of such a covenant. He constantly references the agreement between Him and the Father, particularly the duties, which He as the federal Head, had covenanted Himself to do. Even to the most casual reader of the New Testament, it should be noticeable that everything Christ does and says seems to run along a premeditated course. One thinks of John 5:30, 10:29, 17:4, 6, 8, 22, etc., not to mention the dozens of references Christ made to the Father as the one who, “sent me.” The High Priestly prayer of John 17 especially bears this out. All of this demonstrates that Christ and the Father had a pretemporal agreement between them regarding the work of redemption – how it was to be accomplished and what way each of the Persons of the Trinity would act in accomplishing it.

Christ himself speak of the Covenant of Redemption in Luke 22:29, where He explicitly says, καγω διατιθεμαι υμιν καθως διεθετο μοι ο πατηρ μου βασιλειαν (I engage to you by covenant a kingdom just as my Father engaged to Me by covenant.) In these words, Christ promises us the kingdom by virtue of a covenant which obtained between Him and the Father. This is very clear indeed.

Hebrews 7:22 calls Christ the surety of a better covenant. And He is called so because He engages for us to God that we shall obey, just like Moses intervened as a surety between God and Israel. Christ’s suretyship consists in this: He undertook to perform the conditions of the covenant. This presupposes a covenant, the conditions of which Christ took upon Himself, engaging in our name with the Father, to perform them for us, and that, having performed them, He might engage to us for the Father, that we should certainly have grace and glory bestowed upon us.

Galatians 3:17 mentions a covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ. The contracting parties are God, on the one hand, and Christ on the other. And in order that we do not make the mistake of assuming that Christ is portrayed here only as the executor of the covenant, Paul repeats that Christ was not promised to us or that salvation was not promised to us through Christ (though both are certainly true), but that the promises were made to Christ Himself (vs. 16). Paul literally says, “to Abraham’s seed was the promise made.” Then he clarifies that because the word seed is in the singular, not plural, that the seed is none other than Christ. In other words, “the promises were made to Christ.” It was to Christ that the promises were made concerning the inheritance of the world and the kingdom of grace and glory. It is clear then that διαθηκην denotes a covenant by which something was promised by the Father to Christ.

A very beautiful reference to the Covenant of Redemption is made in Zechariah 6:13, where we have mention of a “counsel of peace” between the man, whose name is “The Branch,” and God. In this and the preceding verse, there is a remarkable prophecy about the Messiah. Zechariah describes His person, offices and glory in a short but dynamic way. He gives as the cause of all the Messiah does - the reason why He appeared as such a person, why He executed such offices and why He obtained such glory. The reason Zechariah gives is the “counsel of peace” between Him and the Father.

He is called “the man.” He is named the Branch because He is sprung from God (Isa. 4:2; Zech. 1:12) He is a new root of a new offspring according to the promise. He is the second Adam. His work is to build the temple of the Lord, that is, the church of the elect, which is the “House of God” (1 Tim. 3:15) that Christ framed (Heb. 3:4) and built (Mat. 16:18). Where do all these things originate? - The counsel of peace which is between the man, who is the Branch, and the Lord whose temple He will build and upon whose throne He will sit (Rev. 3:21).

Commenting on this passage Witsius writes, “And what else can this counsel be, but the mutual will of the Father and the Son, which we said in the nature of a covenant?” It is called a counsel, both on account of the free and liberal good pleasure of both, and of the display of the greatest wisdom manifested therein. And a counsel of peace, not between God and Christ, between whom there was never any enmity, but of peace to be procured for sinful man with God, and to sinners with themselves.”

Herein lies the difference between the Reformed view of atonement and the view of typical evangelicals: When we think of the work of redemption which Christ accomplished in His life and death, we are actually looking at the Covenant of Redemption, not the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is seen when the Holy Spirit applies to elect sinner the redemption wrought for them by Christ in accordance with the counsel of peace between Him and the Father from all eternity.

In the following posts, Lord willing, I wish to present a more detailed analysis of the Covenant of Redemption. To my feeble mind, it is one of the most comforting doctrines in all of Scripture. It speaks of God's eternal love for His elect and the absolute security of its saving fruition in their redemption, because God is sovereign over both sides of the covenant. There is no possiblity of human error or miscarriage of duty.