The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace: Speaking in Terms that Relate to the Biblical World Rather Than Our Own

I'm trying to work through the biblical covenants using the frameworks of the biblical world instead of just the theological categories and definitions we have inherited. This post is my thinking out loud. I'm wanting to think more about how the new covenant fits into everything below, so I may refine these things at some point but here is where I am today.

There has been a massive debate raging for quite some time within Reformed circles concerning the nature of the covenants in the Bible. Some argue that there is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace but differ about where they appear in redemptive history. Others argue that there is no covenant of works but only a covenant of grace that is seen throughout Scripture. What I want to argue here is that much of the dispute is occurring due to theologians defining the nature of covenants apart from the biblical cultural and literary context.

But before we go there, let's list the places where covenants may or may not appear in the Bible.

1. The Adamic Covenant

2. The Noahic Covenant

3. The Abrahamic Covenant

4. The Mosaic Covenant

5. The Davidic Covenant

6. The New Covenant

I did not mention here the covenant of redemption, as this is not a genuine biblical covenant, as it is not founded upon the same principles. I would likely refer to what is typically called the covenant of redemption as a pact just to differentiate it in the terminology. I also don't divide up some of these covenants into sub-covenants or completely different covenants as some do because I simply think it's unnecessary and even incorrect to do so.

Here is what I would say about biblical covenants. They are familial covenants. By "familial covenant" I mean that they are covenants where one party is connected to another party by becoming a part of the first party's family. This is usually through adoption if one is not already a part of the family organically. Family members have particular obligations to one another in the ancient Near Eastern and biblical world. Fathers must protect and provide for their families. Sons must work to contribute to their fathers' families and interests rather than simply their own. Once a part of the family, via covenant, therefore, familial obligations kick in. The "father" in the family must provide for and protect the "son" in the family from chaotic forces. The "son" in the family has obligations to give himself as a contributor to the father's family as evidence that he is in that father's family. 

In this regard, the biblical covenants are framed along the lines of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which is where the stronger party agrees to protect the weaker party if the weaker party will show his allegiance to the stronger party by paying tribute in order to build up the stronger party's kingdom. His works display that he is a part of that kingdom. To not pay the tribute is to remove oneself from the covenant and its benefits. Likewise, if the stronger party attacks the weaker party it is a sign that the stronger party no longer considers the weaker party to be part of his family.

Some people argue that some of the covenants, at least, are grant covenants, where a stronger party, like a king, simply grants rights or gifts to a weaker party without requiring the weaker party to become a part of his family and pay tribute, which would be more of a universalist view. Some might argue that grant covenants function as adoptions into the family without conditions, which would be more of an antinomian view, but I would argue that this is not true of any biblical covenant, as God requires everyone in these covenants above to obey Him and be a part of His family in order to receive the benefits, i.e., the promises of the covenants. Law is a part of all of them.

In this regard, all covenants that are founded upon the structure of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which I would argue describe all of these covenants above, are conditional covenants, and therefore, all are the covenant of works. This includes the new covenant, which requires the evidence of works to show that one is a part of God's family, has God as Father, and therefore, is protected and provided for by God as the One who thwarts chaos from His sons. (The key difference with the new covenant is stated below.)

The problem is that the Bible also teaches that no one is faithful to these covenants, starting with Adam forward. Adam breaks it. Humanity in the Noahic covenant breaks that. Israel within the Abrahamic covenant that is expanded into the Mosaic covenant breaks that. The kings in David's line break the Davidic covenant. 

This is where the Lord Jesus Christ comes in. Instead of entering into covenants that require the tribute of hundreds of laws in order to display our familial allegiance with God, Christ fulfills all of those requirements for us. He pays the penalty for our transgressions when we should have given our allegiance and he fulfills all of the requirements of allegiance to God on our behalf. Christ, then, fulfills the covenant of works for us. But how does He do this?

He does this via federal headship. Federal headship is essentially where a stronger party is considered one entity with the weaker party so that the lot of the stronger party is the lot of the weaker. In other words, he does so through another type of suzerain-vassal treaty, one that is more organically familial than artificial, one that is more internally connected/united to the suzerain than externally. The key difference here is that this treaty only has one condition, one must have Christ as his Lord. Even though one's obedience to Christ displays that Christ is his Lord, forgiveness of disobedience to the suzerain stems from the very relationship one has with the suzerain Himself. In other words, the suzerain himself has protected the vassal from the wrath of the suzerain himself by paying the price of that wrath and fulfilling the obligations of the covenant Himself. So, although, at first, this may seem like the same thing as the previous covenant of works, it isn't. Because Christ has died to pay the penalties for any lack of allegiance displayed in our disobedient works, any show of disobedience, if confessed in repentance, is wiped away, and God does not see us as breaking the covenant so as to remove Himself from His obligations to us within the covenant. Furthermore, all obedience required has been given to God by Christ, and therefore, any lack in our allegiance has been achieved by Christ.

The only way to break this covenant is to refuse to repent. If one refuses to repent, then he shows that Christ is not his Lord, and therefore, the blood of Christ is not applied to his sins, and God therefore is not his Father. God has no obligations to this person to protect and provide for him because Christ is not his Lord and therefore the covenant he is left with is the covenant of works that has been broken by his sin. Having no protector/father stronger than chaos, he is then given over to the forces of chaos that will destroy him.

This federal headship relationship with Christ is rightly called a covenant of grace, not because works are not required to be a display of his allegiance to God but because the person in this covenant is covered by the favor of Christ that the Lord Jesus obtained from God so as to always be received into the family of God even when he fails to have the perfect allegiance he needs to remain within the family of God. This is why the church does not excommunicate a person for any sin except the sin of refusing to repent of sin. The only damnable sin that breaks this covenant, from a human perspective, is apostasy. As long as repentance is present, no sin can damn the person who is unified with Christ in this federal relationship.

In this regard, all covenants of works in the Bible are intermingled with the covenant of grace. There is law that curses and blesses, depending upon whether the person obeys it; but there is also grace that promises through the Messiah that the law is fulfilled so that blessing, and not curse, will be the lot of the one who is united to Christ. 

This informs us of the nature of the Christian life. Christ is our means of fulfilling the covenant of works that is over all of mankind. The Christian life, therefore, is a life of faith/allegiance to Christ as the means of unification to Him, and therefore, of our justification in the assessment of the covenant of works. Any works the Christian performs, and they should be in abundance, is evidence of our faith/allegiance to Christ, not the basis of the justification that we have in Christ (whether one wants to divide justification up as initial justification and final justification or not). Hence, works have no merit to keep us in the covenant with God nor to declare us as keepers of the covenant. They are simply evidences that Christ is our Lord, which is what actually keeps us in the covenant of grace and allows God to declare us as keepers of the covenant of works, truly adopted sons into the family of God and recipients of all of His blessings, provisions and protections.

This means the Christian life is a life of works that stem from our relationship with Christ as our Lord, and they are necessary in that they evidence our true relationship with Christ by confirming or denying our confession. But works are not merely the perfection of doing good but also the continual act of repentance in order to be acquitted of any claim that the covenant of works has gone unfulfilled by the individual and that his allegiance with God as his suzerain has been broken. The Christian life, then, is a life filled with good works and confession of sin that evidence one's right to receive the benefits of the covenant. 

[Side note: By "keep" the covenant, I speak from the human perspective, as many verses would argue that one who does not keep his allegiance to Christ as his Lord from the perspective of the visible church, from the divine view of things, was never "of us" (1 John and was never (lit. "at no time") known by Christ (Matt 7). His refusal to repent simply displayed that he was always under the condemnation of the covenant of works without the provisions of Christ.]