John Murray on the New Covenant

Three preliminary thoughts from John Murray:

The language Zacharias uses in Luke 1:72 runs parallel with the language God used when preparing the Israelites for deliverance from Egypt.

Paul mentions covenants as plural in Romans 9:4, so the New Testament writers did not think of God’s covenants with Israel as simply Abrahamic. Also, in Ephesians 2:12, Paul speaks of the covenants as covenants of promise.

Murray stresses this last one the most, that in Galatians 3:15, 17, Paul stresses the immutable nature of covenants. Thus follows security.

New and Old Covenants

The fact that there is a new and an old covenant, does not mean that one is a covenant and the other is not. Instead, they should carry the same similar characteristics, and they do-namely its monergistic bestowment, divine establishment and fulfillment. The new covenant is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Lk. 1:72; Gal. 3:15).

Christ said that his blood was the blood of the covenant, shed for the forgiveness of sins. The covenant is the epitome of grace, truth and relationship, and this fullness of grace is purchased by Christ’s blood. In Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians, he clearly shows that he views the new covenant as the climax of redemptive history and the ultimate union of relationship.

In Hebrews, the author describes reasons why the new covenant is better than the Mosaic covenant. The previous description of covenant is applied directly here. The new covenant is a wonderfully closer spiritual relationship, that was established in the Abrahamic covenant, but reaches its fruition here. The new covenant has better promises. However, the new covenant does not nullify the law, but instead is more fulfilled in us (Heb. 8:10). Also, the new covenant covers sins (Heb. 8:12). Finally, the new covenant is one of growing in knowledge of God available to all (Heb. 8:11). The new covenant is a true manifestation of all the descriptors we have seen applied to covenants, being divinely initiated, confirmed and fulfilled.

Click here to read the article.

John Murray on the Davidic Covenant

If the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were both divinely appointed, then we should expect the same for future covenants. Murray turns to David and first defends the notion that David even had a covenant with God. He references Samuel 7:12-17:

When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever. Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation.

What is characteristic about the Davidic covenant is that it seems to emphasize security and immutability on the part of God’s divine, sovereign will. Later, when David is in despair, his assurance rests in God’s covenant with him (2 Sa. 13:5). The promises to David are messianic because Christ will eventually be the one to establish the Davidic throne for all eternity. Following passages support the idea that Christ was given for a covenant: Is. 42:1, 6; 44:8; 55:3-4. God establishes the covenant and also fulfills the promise by sending Christ as a servant of the covenant.

He is the angel of the covenant because He comes in pursuance of the covenant promise and purpose, and He is Himself the covenant because the blessings and provisions of the covenant are to such an extent bound up with Him that He is Himself the embodiment of these blessings and of the presence of the Lord with His people which the covenant insures. To whatever extent the response of inclining the ear, of hearing, and of coming (Is. lv. 3) may be requisite in order that the blessings of covenant grace and relationship may be ours, it must be apparent that the covenant itself is a sovereign donation of the child born and the Son given (Is. ix. 6).

Next time we will finally be hitting the New Testament covenant.

Click here to read the article.

John Murray on the Mosaic Covenant

The Mosaic covenant is the covenant most easily construed as supporting the idea of covenant being a compact. Thus, the Mosaic covenant has oftentimes been put in contradistinction from the Abrahamic and New Testament covenants. Murray lists three preliminary observations:

1. Conditional fulfillment is not only visible in the Mosaic covenant, but is also in the Abrahamic covenant.
2. God rescuing Israel out of Egypt was in faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant (Ex. 2:24).
3. Relationship is the core of the Mosaic covenant, much like the Abrahamic covenant (Ex. 6:7, Dt. 29:13).

So we should not think that the Mosaic covenant is a sequel to the Abrahamic covenant, but instead that the Mosaic covenant was to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.

The Mosaic covenant is referred to oftentimes with the requirement of God for them to keep it. These references include Exodus 19:5, 6; 24:7, 8). These make it seem as if God needed Israel’s acceptance of the covenant before it could be made. Murray contends this point and references Exodus 19:5:

If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me.

The covenant is ordained by grace, creating a relationship. It is not a conditional agreement in which Israel had to do something before the covenant was “signed.” What keeping the covenant actually does is it will give the blessing that the covenant stipulates. Before blood was shed, the covenant was already in effect, blood being only an outward sign of its establishment. Other verses support this idea of “sovereign appointment”: Ex. 34:27, 28; Lv. 24:8; Nu. 18:19, 25:13).

So how does obedience coincide with a “monergistic administration of grace”?

John Murray on the Abrahamic Covenant

We now turn to the Abrahamic covenant to further explore what this biblical idea of covenant consists of. Murray notes two special features in the Abrahamic covenant that was not present in the post-diluvian Noahic covenant. These are: 1) God promises Abraham that he will inherit Canaan (Gn. 15:8-18), 2) there is reference to keeping and breaking the covenant (Gn. 17:9, 10, 14).

God’s Promise
Murray makes the following observations that are related to this particular promise, that may help define covenant.

1. Covenant is intimate. The covenant is about union and communion with God, it is relational.
2. Covenant is monergistic. Again, we see God being the initiator of the covenant and fulfiller of it as well. God is the one who passes through the divided halves of the animals. It is God who puts His name on the line.

Conditions in Covenant?
Abraham’s covenant is different than Noah’s in that Abraham’s concerns a relationship with God, whereas Noah’s is not. Thus, the keeping of the covenant is resultant from the intimacy of the Abrahmic covenant. The closer the relationship, the more obligation there is to obey the commands of God. There is an element of mutuality in the covenant because fellowship requires mutuality. Abraham’s obedience is the condition for the inheritance. However, we should not misconstrue this idea of conditionality as conditions for the initiation of covenant. Covenant is still a divine bestowal of grace, monergistic in its inherent character. The “continued enjoyment of this grace and of the relation established” is only the result of fulfilled conditions, but the conditions are not conditions of the bestowal. In other words, covenant-keeping only comes into play after the covenant is established by God’s grace.

Therefore, covenant-keeping is not failure to keep one’s side of the agreement. Covenant-keeping is in regards to being faithful to grace already bestowed. Murray writes, “by breaking the covenant what is broken is not the condition of bestowal but the condition of consummated fruition.”

Murray ends this examination of the Abrahamic with a sharp observation. The discrimination involved in this covenant (unlike the Noahic covenant which blesses the entire world), not only emphasizes God’s sovereign grace, but also requires covenant-keeping. Indiscriminate covenants cannot be broken or kept, but particular ones can. So the character of the Abrahamic covenant, being particularly bestowed on Abraham, emphasizes the necessity of covenant-keeping for promise-fulfillment.

A Quick Personal Note
I find this has great bearing on the covenant we now have with God through Christ’s atonement. We do indeed have a relational covenant, one that is dispensed through God’s grace alone to the elect. And thus we seek to obey God’s commandments, not as a condition to attain entry into God’s covenant, but as a response to grace bestowed. I may be jumping the gun on this, since Murray will eventually deal with the new covenant in Christ, but I just thought it was an excellent illustration (although perhaps oversimplified) of some mechanics between law and grace.

John Murray on the Post-Diluvian Noahic Covenant

The first covenant that Murray specifically examines is the Noahic covenant. To recap what Murray’s aim is: he hopes to “discover what precisely constitutes a covenant and what precisely is the nature of that relation on the part of God to men which covenant constitution contemplates.” Murray lists a few features of the Noahic covenant:

1. God’s covenant. God’s covenant is established by God, not man (Gn. 9:9).
2. Universal implications. The Noahic covenant affects not only Noah and his children, but every living thing (Gn. 9:9-10). The covenant affects even those who do not have an intellectual understanding of it. However, we should note that Noah was given revelation and so he did understand the grace being bestowed on him, but it also affects those who are totally unaware of this covenant’s existence.
3. Promise is unconditional. This comes side by side with intellectual understanding not being necessary for benefits. There are no elements present that suggest human unfaithfulness resulting in covenant nullification.
4. Monergistic in nature. In other words, God is the sole initiator and actor. The sign of the covenant, the rainbow, is completely controlled by God. Furthermore, the rainbow is referenced to God, as He will see it and remember. It is God who will remain faithful and the continuation of the covenant is dependent on God.
5. Everlasting. Because it is God’s covenant, it can be eternal.

What is most significant about this covenant is that we see a rebuttal of the idea of covenant being a mutual contract. It is wholly God’s doing, wholly monergistic. There is no room for man’s agreement for men play no role in this promise and can affect them even without them knowing the covenant exists. Murray admits that this one example cannot define all aspects of covenant accurately because this covenant is indeed dealing with not only men, but also non-moral creation.

Murray also notes the pre-diluvian Noahic covenant (Gn. 6:15) and how initially it may seem to be a mutual agreement. God commands Noah to follow certain instructions, and Noah completes them as a condition for grace. Even though obedience is required here, there is no doubt that the covenant is divinely initiated and monergistic in its application. The idea of mutual agreement is not apparent here as it is not apparent in the post-diluvian covenant. Furthermore, “the commandments are added in such a way that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription or dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself.”

These features of the covenant plainly evince that this covenant is a sovereign, divine administration, that it is such in its conception, determination, disclosure, confirmation, and fulfillment, that it is an administration or dispensation of forbearance and goodness, that it is not conditioned by or dependent upon faith or obedience on the part of men. It is an administration of grace which emanates from the sovereign good pleasure of God and continues without any modification or retraction of its benefits by the immutable promise and faithfulness of God.

Use of Covenant in Scripture

John Murray’s aim in this next section of his essay is to investigate whether the definitions provided above of the covenant of grace as a mutual agreement is properly aligned with the teachings of Scripture. He does not deny the strong presence of God’s grace and promise. Click here, to read Murray’s essay.

Covenants Between Men
Covenants were made between Abimelech and Isaac, Labanand Jacob, Gibeonites with Joshua, David with Jonathan, David with Abner, Solomon with Hiram, all using the term ‘covenant’ or berith (Hebrew). Although in covenants between men does bear the concept of mutual agreement, this does not mean mutual agreement is central to God’s covenant with man. The idea of contracts or pacts is the central feature here between men, but instead “sworn fidelity” and “whole-souled commitment.”

Covenants Made by Man with God
Next, Murray investigates covenants initiated by men. Examples include Joshua (Jos. 14:25), Jehodia (2 Ki. 11:17), Josiah (2 Ki. 23:3), and Ezra (Ezr. 10:3). Instead of these contracts or even agreements, these are “promissory commitment[s] to faith or troth on the part of the people concerned.” These covenants are promises of unconditional devotion to God and obedience to Him. This type of covenant is much like the covenant between men, being one of commitment.

Divine Covenants
Now this seems to be the most important issue: does mutual agreement play the central mechanism for covenants which God makes? Outside of formal covenants that we seem to always recall, such as the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the word covenant is also used in regards to God’s creative ordinances, such as the covenant of the day and night (Je. 33:20, 25) or that the earth would continue its cycles of season, harvest and day/night (Gn. 8:22). In these creative ordinances we also see God’s faithfulness and see “covenant may be used to express divine monergism and fidelity.”

We will be continuing in the following posts to go through different covenants, namely the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Testament covenants.

But covenant theology is not just simple speculation, but should affect us somehow. Since we are in the New Testament covenant, the new covenant Christ spoke of at the last supper, how are we to respond to covenant? This is one of the main reasons why I feel it is important that we understand covenants, their progression and their fulfillment in Christ, so that we can also live lives in accordance with our membership in the covenant of grace.

Defining “Covenant”

I’ve never actually considered learning more about covenant theology until I read Robert Leetham’s “The Work of Christ” and his consistent references to Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants. For the next several days, hopefully by the time we reach GW for early move-in, I will be posting on John Murray’s essay titled “The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study”. Click here, to read it.

Defining “Covenant”
What does the word “covenant” mean? Murray provides us a list of different influential scholars who have answered the question in varying ways.

Henry Bullinger describes the covenant of grace as unity through agreement between God and men involving God’s promise and man’s condition of keeping the covenant through obedience.

Ursinus describes it in similar terms, as a mutual pact between God and men, where God promises to be favorable and gracious and the men are faithful and repentant. The covenant of grace has its outward expression in the sacraments.

Francis Turretin defines the covenant grace:

a gratuitous pact between God offended and man the offender, entered into in Christ, in which God promises to man freely on account of Christ remission of sins and salvation, and man relying on the same grace promises faith and obedience. Or it is a gratuitous agreement between God the offended one and man the offender concerning grace and glory in Christ to be conferred upon man the sinner on the condition of faith.

Turretin’s definition contains the elements of: 1) author, 2) parties contracting, 3) Mediator

A bit short today, but hopefully good starts for our brief look at covenant theology. Sammy should also begin posting again.