THE COVENANT

OF GRACE
A BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL STUDY

by
JOHN MURRAY

Professor of Systematic Theology in

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

LONDON

THE TYNDALE PRESS

 THE TYNDALE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
LECTURE, 1953
The lecture was delivered in Selwyn College, Cam-
bridge, on July 6th, 1953 at a meeting convened by
the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research.

Printed in Great Britain by

Green & Co. (Lowestoft) Ltd., Crown Street, Lowestoft.
 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
A BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL STUDY

INTRODUCTION

TUDENTS of historical theology, even those who entertain

S a radically different view of the history of divine revelation
from that which governs the thought of classic Reformed
theology, have recognized that the covenant theology marked an
epoch in the appreciation and understanding of the progressive-
ness of divine revelation. William Robertson Smith, for example,
gives the following appraisal : ' With all its defects, the Federal
theology of Cocceius is the most important attempt, in the older
Protestant theology, to do justice to the historical development
of revelation '. 1 Geerhardus Vos, steeped in and sympathetic
towards the covenant theology, says that it ' has from the
beginning shown itself possessed of a true historic sense in the
apprehension of the progressive character of the deliverance of
truth.' 2
When we use the term' covenant theology', however, we must
not restrict this evaluation to the more fully developed covenant
theology of the seventeenth century. For in John Calvin there
is a distinct emphasis upon the historic progressiveness and con-
tinuity of redemptive revelation. We need only to be reminded
of the Institutes, Book 11, Chapters x and xi where he unfolds
in detail the similarities and differences of the two Testaments.
It is in connection with this discussion that he says: ' The
covenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially
from ours, that it is the very same. Only the administration
varies.' 3 Later, in one of the most significant statements rele-
vant to this subject, he says: ' If the subject still appears involved
in any obscurity, let us proceed to the very form of the covenant;
which will not only satisfy sober minds, but will abundantly
prove the ignorance of those who endeavour to oppose it. For

1 The Prophets of Israel, New York, r882, p. 375; cf. W. Adams Brown:
' Covenant Theology ' in Encyclopc:edia of Religion and Ethics, ed. james
Hastings, New York, 1928, vol. IV, p. 2r8.
2 'Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke' in The Princeton Theological Review,
vol. XIV, p. 6o.
3 Inst. II, x. 2.

3
4 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
the Lord has always covenanted thus with his servantS : " I will
be to you a God, and ye shall be to me a people" (Lv. xxvi. r2).
These expressions, according to the common explanation of the
prophets, comprehend life, and salvation, and consummate
felicity.' 4 Nothing could be more pertinent to the perspective
which is indispensable ~o the proper understanding of covenant
revelation than the recognition that the central element of the
blessing involved in covenant grace is the relationship expressed
in the words, ' I will be your God, and ye shall be my people '.
The covenant theology not only recognized the organic unity
and progressiveness of redemptive revela~ion but also the fact
that redemptive revelation was covenant revelation and that the
religion of piety which was the fruit and goal of this covenant
revelation was covenant religion or piety. The necessity of this
conclusion can readily be shown by the fact that the relation of
grace and promise established by God with Abraham was a
covenant relation. It is this Abrahamic covenant, so explicitly
set forth in Genesis xv and xvii, that underlies the whole subse-
quent development of God's redemptive promise, word, and
action. It is in terms of the promise given ~o Abraham, that in
him and in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed, 5
that God sent forth His Son in the fulness of time in order that
He might redeem them that were under the law and all without
distinction might receive the adoption of sons. It is in fulfilment
of this promise to Abraham that there is now no longer Jew nor
Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free, ~hat Christ is all and
in all, and that all believers are blessed with faithful Abraham. 6
The redemptive grace of God in the highest and furthest reaches
of its realization is the unfolding of the promise given to Abra-
ham and therefore the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant.
Soteriology is covenant soteriology and eschatology is covenant
eschatology.
The covenant theology was governed by this insight and by
this conception. It was in the Reformed theology that the
covenant theology developed, and the greatest contribution of
covenant theology was its covenant soteriology and eschatology.
It would not be, however, in the interests of theological con-

4 Inst. II, x. 8.
5 Gn. xii. 3, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4; Gal. iii. 8, 9, 16.
6 Rom. iv. 16·18; Gal. iii. 7·
 DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' COVENANT ' 5
servation or theological progress for us to think that the covenant
theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no further
need for correction, modification, and expansion. Theology must
always be undergoing reformation. The human understanding
is imperfect. However architectonic may be the systematic con-
structions of any one generation or group of generations, there
always remains the need for correction and reconstruction so that
the structure may be brought into closer approximation to the
Scripture and the reproduction be a more faithful transcript or
reflection of the heavenly exemplar. It appears to me that the
covenant theology, notwithstanding the finesse of analysis with
which it was worked out and the grandeur of its articulated
systematization, needs recasting. We would not presume to claim
that we shall be so successful in this task that the reconstruction
will displace and supersede the work of the classic covenant
theologians. But with their help we may be able to contribute a
little towards a more biblically articulated and formulated con-
struction of the covenant concept and of its application to our
faith, love, and hope.

DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' COVENANT '

From early times in the era of the Reformation and through-

out the development of the covenant theology the formulation
has been deeply affected by the idea that a covenant is a
compact or agreement between two parties. As early as Henry
Bullinger's De Testamento seu Foedere Dei we find such state-
ments as the following. ' A 8ta8~K7J in the singular number
signifies a pact and agreement and promise.' 7 And Bullinger
proceeds to construe the covenant of grace as a uniting together
of God and man in terms of certain prescriptions - on God's
side promises, on man's side the condition of keeping the coven-
ant by fearing the Lord, walking in His ways, and serving Him
with the whole heart. Ursinus,8 in like manner, says: ' A
covenant in general signifieth a mutual contract or agreement of
two parties joined in the covenant, whereby is made a bond or
obligation on certain conditions for the performance of giving
or taking something, with addition of outward signs and tokens.
7 De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno.
8 The Summe of Christian Religion translated by D. Henrie Parry (Oxford.
r6or), p. 218.
6 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
for solemn testimony and confirmation that the compact and
promise shall be kept inviolable '. Hence God's covenant is
' a mutual promise and agreement between God and men, where-
by God giveth men assurance, that he will be gracious and
favorable to them . . . and on the other side men bind them-
selves to faith and repentance '.9 This mutual compact, Ursinus
holds, is sealed by the sacraments, testifying God's will toward
us and our dutifulness toward Him. John Preston, likewise,
defines a covenant as a compact, agreement, mutual engagement.
The covenant with Abraham comprised four things: (1) the seed
promised and fulfilled in Christ; (2) the condition - faith in the
promise; (3) the confirmation - promise and oath; (4) the parts
which answer to the three offices of Christ. 10 And William
Perkins says that the covenant of grace is nothing more than ' a
compact made between God and man touching reconciliation
and life everlasting by Christ '. The parties reconciled are God
and man, God being the principal, promising righteousness and
life in Christ, and man binding himself to faith. Christ is the
mediator in whom all the promises are yea and amen.U
The more scholastic and systematic theologians took their
point of departure from this type of definition. Peter Van
Mastricht, for example, says that a covenant denotes an agree-
ment (consensus) between God and His people in which God
promises beatitude and stipulates obedience. Van Mastricht
applies this notion of agreement or consent of parties in different
ways to different covenants and thus makes important distinc-
tionsP But these distinctions are not our concern at present.
Cocceius also construes the covenant of grace as ' an agreement
between God and man a sinner '_13
Francis Turretine defines the covenant of grace as ' a gratuitous
pact between God offended and man the offender, entered into
in Christ, in which God promises to man freely on account of

9 Ibid., p. 219; cf. H. a Diest: Mel/ificium Catecheticum Continens Epitomen

Catecheticarum Explicationum Ursino-Pareanarum (Deventer, 164o), p. 89.
10 The New Covenant or the Saints Portion (London, 1639), pp. 313, 347ff.
11 An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, Works, Vol. I
(London, 1612), pp. 164ff.
12 Theoretico-Practica Theologia (Utrecht, 1698), Lib. Ill, Cap. XII, § VII;
Lib. V, Cap. I, § § VI-XV.
13 Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei, Cap. IV, § 76, Summa
Theologiae (Amsterdam, 1701), Tome VII, p. 57·
 DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' COVENANT ' 7
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 '. 14 Consequently the ele-
ments in the covenant consist in (1) the Author, (2) the Parties
contracting, (3) the Mediator, and (4) the Clauses a parte Dei
and a parte hominis.
Herman Witsius, to take another example, says that ' the
covenant of grace is an agreement between God and the elect
sinner; God declaring his free goodwill concerning eternal sal-
vation, and everything relative thereto, freely to be given to
those in covenant by and for the sake of the Mediator Christ;
and man consenting to that goodwill by a sincere faith '. 15

14 Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, Loc. XI, Quaest. II, § V.

15 De Oeconomia Foederum Dei cum Hominibus, Lib. II, Cap. I, § V. Cf. also
Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 354ff.; W. G. T. Shedd:
Dogmatic Theology (New York, I888), Vol. II, pp. 358ff.; R. L. Dabney:
Systematic and Polemic Theology (Richmond, I927), pp. 43off.
There has been, however, a recognition on the part of more recent students
of covenant theology that the idea of pact or compact or contract is not
adequate or proper as the definition of berith and diatheke and admirable
service has been rendered by such scholars in the analysis and formulation
of the biblical concept. Cf. Geerhardus Vos: 'Hebrews, the Epistle of the
Diatheke' in The Princeton Theological Review, October I9I5 and January
I9I6 (Vol. XIII, pp. 587-632 and Vol. XIV, pp. I·6I); Herman Bavinck:
Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen, I9I8), Vol. Ill, pp. 2o9ff.; G. Ch.
Aalders: Het Verbond Gods (Kampen, I939)- John Kelly in The Divine
Covenants: their Nature and Design (London, I86I) says quite dogmatically
with reference to diatheke: 'It does not properly signify a compact or
agreement; there is another Greek word for this, never used for covenant '
(p. 8);cf. also David Russell: A Familiar Survey of the Old and New Cove-
nants (Edinburgh, I824), p. I 54- Most recently Herman N. Ridderbos: The
Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids, I953) says: 'In
LXX Stali~K"7 is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God
(berith), rather than the apparently more available word U1lvli~K"1- In this
there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does
not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that
of a one-sided grant. This corresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old
Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to
a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored
one (cf. Josh. 9: 6, I5, I Sam. II : I, Ezek. I7: I3). And it is most peculiarly
true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes
not from man at all, but from God alone ' (p. I30 n.).
8 THE COVENANT OF GRACE

THE USE OF THE TERM IN SCRIPTURE

As we study the biblical evidence bearing upon the nature of

divine covenant we shall discover that the emphasis in these
theologians upon God's grace and promise is one thoroughly in
accord with the relevant biblical data. As we shall see, the
gracious, promissory character of covenant cannot be over-
accented. But the question that confronts us is whether the
notion of mutual compact or agreement or convention provides
the proper point of departure for our construction of the cove-
nant of grace. The question now is not whether the theologians
who made use of this concept were entirely governed by its
implications and carried it out so rigidly in their construction of
the covenant of grace that the total result was warped and dis-
torted by the importation and application of this idea. Further-
more, the question is not whether the idea of compact may not
with propriety be used in the interpretation and construction of
certain aspects of those divine provisions which lie behind and
come to expression in God's administration of saving grace to
fallen men. And, finally, the question is not whether mutuality
must be ruled out of our conception of what is involved in the
relation which the covenant of grace constitutes. The question
is simply whether biblico-theological study will disclose that, in
the usage of Scripture, covenant (berith in Hebrew and diatheke
in Greek) may properly be interpreted in terms of a mutual pact
or agreement.

(a) Covenants between men

When we examine the Scripture we do find that berith is applied
to relationships established between men. Abraham and
Abimelech made a covenant at Beer-sheba (Gn. xxi. 27, 32).16
Abimelech said to Isaac, ' Let us make a covenant with thee '
(Gn. xxvi. 28). Laban said to Jacob, 'Now therefore come thou,
and let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness
between me and thee ' (Gn. xxxi. 44). The Gibeonites said to
Joshua, 'Make ye a covenant with us' (Jos. ix. 6, II, RV, cf.
verse 15). David made a covenant with Jonathan, and Jonathan
with David (I Sa, xviii. 3). David made a covenant with Abner

16 The terms used here for making a covenant are n',:l n,:;,. What the sig·
nificance of n,:;, is will be reflected on later.
 THE USE OF THE TERM IN SCRIPTURE 9
(2 Sa. iii. 12, 13, 21); he also made a covenant with all the elders
of Israel in Hebron when he became king over all Israel (2 Sa.
v. 3). Solomon and Hiram made a covenant (1 Ki. v. 12). It
might seem that here undoubtedly the notion of agreement or
contract prevails and that to make a covenant is simply to enter
into a mutual compact or league.
It must be said, first of all, that, even should it be true that
in these covenants the idea of mutual compact is central, it does
not follow that the idea of compact is central in or essential to
the covenant relation which God constitutes with man. We have
to recognize a parity existing between men which cannot obtain
in the relation between God and man. And we must also appre-
ciate the flexibility that attaches to the use of terms in Scripture
as well as in other literature. Hence we might find that mutual
compact is of the essence of covenant when a merely human
relationship is in view and that such an idea would be entirely
out of place when a divine-human relationship is contemplated.
In the second place, it needs to be noted that the LXX in these
cases renders the Hebrew berith by the Greek word diatheke.
This is significant because, if mutual compact belonged to the
essence of covenant in these cases, we should have expected the
translators to use suntheke. To say the least this raises our
suspicion that the LXX translators were not governed by the
thought of mutual agreement when they came to these instances
of covenantal human relationships. Geerhardus Vos is mistaken
when he says that ' where the berith is made between man and
man and consists in a mutual agreement, the translators do not
employ Sta8~K1J but avv9~K1J, a word exactly corresponding to
the word covenant 'P The term suntheke hardly ever appears
in the canonical books of the LXX. It appears two or three
times but only once possibly as the translation of berith.l8 In
this one possible case it refers to the Lord's covenant with Israel.
In the third place, when we examine some of the instances in

17 ' Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke ' in The Princeton Theological Review,
Vol. XIII, p. 6o3.
18 2 Ki. xvii. IS. Other instances of uvvO~K'YJ are Is. xxviii. IS, where it is
not at all likely that it is the translation of n•1~ but rather of il.JM· and Is.
xxx. I, where it is the translation of il:t~~· It appears several times in the
apocryphal books. Aquila and Symmachus have uvvO~K'YJ frequently and
Theodotion a few times.
IO THE COVENANT OF GRACE
question we shall discover that the thought of pact or contract
is not in the foreground. It is not denied that there is engage-
ment or commitment in reference to something upon which the
person entering into covenant is agreed. Abimelech said to Isaac,
'Let us make a covenant with thee; that thou will do us no hurt,
as we have not touched thee' (Gn. xxvi. 28, 29). And Laban
said to Jacob, ' Let us make a covenant, I and thou, and let it be
for a witness between me and thee ' (Gn. xxxi. 44). And Laban
and Jacob apparently agreed that they would not pass over the
heap and pillar to each other for harm (cf. verse 52). There is
engagement or commitment indeed. But when all the instances
of merely human covenants are examined, it would definitely
appear that the notion of sworn fidelity is thrust into prominence
in these covenants rather than that of mutual contract. It is not
tJhe contractual terms that are in prominence so much as the
solemn engagement of one person to another. To such an extent
is this the case that stipulated terms of agreement need not be
present at all. It is the giving of oneself over in the commit-
ment of troth that is emphasized and the specified conditions as
those upon which the engagement or commitment is contingent
are not mentioned. It is the promise of unreserved fidelity, of
whole-souled commitment that appears to constitute the essence
of the covenant. There is promise, there may be the sealing of
that promise by oath, and there is the bond resultant upon these
elements. It is a bonded relationship of unreserved commitment
in respect of the particular thing involved or the relationship
constituted. This is well illustrated by what David says to
Jonathan: 'thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the
Lord with thee ' (1 Sa. xx. 8). David accords to Jonathan's com-
mitment the bonded character of divine sanction and regards it
as sealed by divine oath.
If this analysis of the nature of these human covenants is
correct, then the idea of stipulations and conditions devised by
mutual consultation and agreed upon as the terms of engagement
need not to be present even in human covenants. There is, of
course, the bond of commitment to one another, but so profound
and all-embracing is this commitment that the notion of con-
tractual stipulations recedes into the background or disappears
entirely. To say the least, the case is such in these instances of
human relationship that no evidence can be derived from them
to support the idea of mutual contract or compact.
 THE USE OF THE TERM IN SCRIPTURE I!
(b) Covenants made by man with God
The next type of covenant to be considered is the covenant of
human initiative entered into with the Lord. In the days of
Joshua the people said, 'The Lord our God will we serve, and
unto his voice will we hearken' (]os. xxiv. 24, RV), and in
answer to this promise' Joshua made a covenant with the people
that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem '
(xxiv. 25). There is the case of Jehoiada who 'made a covenant
between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should
be the Lord's people ' (2 Ki. xi. 17). Josiah ' made a covenant
before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his com-
mandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his
heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that
were written in this book: and all the people stood to the coven-
ant' (2 Ki. xxiii. 3. RV). Finally, Ezra said to the people in his
day, ' Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to
put away all the wives' (Ezr. x. 3). These are instances of
covenanting with God. We cannot fail to note that what is in the
forefront in these cases is not a contract or compact. Strictly
speaking, it is not an agreement. Though the persons entering
into covenant agree to do certain things, the precise thought is
not that of agreement by the people among themselves, nor a
mutual agreement between the people and the Lord. We must
distinguish between devising terms of agreement or striking an
agreement, on the one hand, and the agreement of consent or
commitment, on the other. What we find in these instances is
solemn, promissory commitment to faith or troth on the part of
the people concerned. They bind themselves in bond to be faith-
ful to the Lord in accordance with His revealed will. The
covenant is solemn pledging of devotion to God, unreserved and
unconditional commitment to His service. We are far away from
the idea of a bond as sealed on the acceptance of certain
prescribed stipulations and the promise of fulfilment of these
stipulations on the condition that other parties to the contract
fulfil the conditions imposed upon them. The thought is rather
that of unreserved, whole-souled commitment.

(c) Divine covenants

When we pass on to those instances of covenant which are speci-
fically divine it is here that the question becomes particularly
pointed and urgent : does the idea of mutual compact or agree-
12 THE COVENANT OF GRACE

ment constitu~e the essence of a divine covenant? Or, if this

points the question too sharply, is mutual compact or agreement
an integral element in the biblical conception of a covenant which
God dispenses to men ?
There are a few instances in the Old Testament where the
word covenant is used with reference to God's creative and
providential ordinances. The covenant of the day and of the
night is synonymous with the ordinances of day and night (Je.
xxxiii. 2o, 25). Obviously what is emphasized is the stability
and perpetuity of these ordinances arising from the ordination
of God and the immutability arising from such ordination. There
may also be an allusion to the promise given after the flood that
while the earth remained seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night would not cease (Gn. viii. 22).
In that even~ the faithfulness of God not only to His providential
ordinances but also to His promise would be brought into view,
and the total thought would be that covenant in this connection
points to the ordinances of God as immovably established by the
ordination, power, and faithfulness of God. We are given some
indication of the way in which covenant may be used to express
divine monergism and fidelity.

THE POST-DILUVIAN NOAHIC COVENANT

We come now to those instances of covenant administration

which have respect to God's bestowal of grace upon men,
instances with which we are directly concerned in our attempt
to discover what precisely constitutes a covenant and what pre-
cisely is the nature of that relation on the part of God to men
which covenant constitution contemplates. We may consider,
first of all, that instance which, perhaps more than any other in
Scripture, assists us in discovering what the essence of covenant
is, namely, the post-diluvian Noahic covenant (Gn. ix. 9-17). In
regard to ~his covenant the following features are patent.
1. It is God's covenant in that it is conceived, devised, deter-
mined, established, confirmed, and dispensed by God Himself.
' And I, behold, I am establishing my covenant with you ' (Gn.
ix. 9; cf. verses 11, 12, 13, 17).
2. It is universal in its scope, a covenant not only with Noah
but with his seed after him and with every living creature (verses
9, 10). This places in obvious relief the fact that it affects for
 THE POST~DILUVIAN NOAHIC COVENANT 13
good even those who do not have any intelligent understanding
of its meaning. The covenant operates for good to such an
extent that its benefits are not contingent upon intelligent appre-
ciation of the covenant or of the benefits which are dispensed in
terms of it.
We must not forget, of course, that the blessings bestowed in
terms of this covenant are not dispensed in complete abstraction
from the revelation given at the time of its establishment nor in
abstraction from understanding of its significance on the part of
men. God spoke to Noah and to his sons. This was revelation,
and revelation implies subjects endowed with the intellectual
capacity to understand its character and its effects. Furthermore,
we may not forget that the covenant purpose and grace were
made known to Noah, and the perpetuity of the covenant is con-
tinuously attested in order that those capable of understanding
may have confidence in the security and perpetuity of the coven-
ant grace bestowed. But we must also observe that the covenant
operates on behalf of, and dispenses its blessings to, those who
are wholly unaware of its existence. It is a covenant with all
flesh.
3· It is an unconditional covenant. This feature is, of course,
co~rdinate with the fact that intelligent understanding is not
indispensable to the reception of its benefits. But the particular
consideration now in view is that no commandment is appended
which could be construed as the condition upon which the
promise is to be fulfilled. And there is not the slightest sugges-
tion to the effect that the covenant could be annulled by human
unfaithfulness or its blessing forfeited by unbelief; the thought of
breaking the covenant is inconceivable. The confirmation given
is to the opposite effect. In a word, the promise is unconditional.
4· The covenant is intensely and pervasively monergistic.
Nothing exhibits this more clearly than the fact that the sign
attached to attest and seal the divine faithfulness and the
irrevocability of God's promise is one produced by conditions .
over which God alone has control and in connection with which
there is rigid exclusion of human co-operation. The sign is not
an action instituted by God and performed by man at the divine
behest. It is one in which there is no human agency whatsoever.
Even what is said regarding the bow in the cloud has a Godward
reference. God will see it to remember the everlasting covenant.
There is, doubtless, anthropomorphism here. But it is anthro-
 14 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
pomorphism for the purpose of bringing to the forefront the
unilateral character of the covenant. It is true that the revelatory
purpose of the bow in the cloud is not to be forgotten. But the
significant fact is that the revelatory purpose is to bear witness
to the divine faithfulness. It is the constant reminder that God
will not prove unfaithful to His promise. The main point to be
stressed now, however, is that this continuance is dependent upon
divine faithfulness alone; in anthropomorphic terms, upon the
divine remembrance alone. And if we fail to interpret the sign
aright, if we regard it simply as a natural phenomenon without
any reference to its covenantal meaning, this does not negate or
nullify the divine remembrance and the perpetuity of God's faith-
fulness. ' I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlast-
ing covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh
that is upon the earth' (Gn. ix. 16).
5· It is an everlasting covenant. All flesh will not again be
cut off by the waters of the flood (Gn. ix. 11). The perpetuity is
bound up with its divinely unilateral and monergistic character.
It is because it is divine in its origin, administration, establish-
ment, and confirmation that it can be perpetual. And we may
say that the perpetuity both stems from and witnesses to its
divinity. Perpetuity and divinity are complementary and
mutually interdependent.
These features of the covenant plainly evince that this cove-
nant is a sovereign, divine administration, that it is such in its
conception, determination, disclosure, confirmation, and fulfil-
ment, 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 bene-
fits by the immutable promise and faithfulness of God.
It is quite apparent that in this covenant we must not take
. our point of departure from the idea of compact, or contract, or
agreement in any respect whatsoever. It is not contractual in its
origin, or in its constitution, or in its operation, or in its outcome.
Its fulfilment or continuance is not in the least degree contingent
even upon reciprocal obligation or appreciation on the part of its
beneficiaries. Yet it is a covenant made with men, with Noah
and his sons and their seed after them to perpetual generations.
It is a covenant characterized by divinity in a way unsurpassed
 THE POST-DILUVIAN NOAHIC COVENANT 15
by any other covenant and yet it draws men within the scope of
its operation as surely as any other covenant does. Here we
have covenant in the purity of its conception, as a dispensation
of grace to men, wholly divine in its origin, fulfilment, and
confirmation.
The question inevitably faces us: may we consider the post-
diluvian Noahic covenant as providing us with the essential
features of a divine covenant with men? Is there not in this
covenant that which makes it inappropriate as the criterion of
the terms which could govern the covenant relationship of God
with men on the highest level ? In this covenant creation as a
whole is brought within the scope of the favour bestowed. Hence
it can be argued that the relationship with men involved in this
covenant must be on a denominator that is common to man and
to the non-moral creation and cannot, therefore, possess any
of the differentiating features which would characterize covenant
relationship to men as men. Needless to say this consideration
must be taken into account in our interpretation of what con-
stitutes divine covenant on the highest; level of blessing and
relationship. And yet it would be unwarranted to disregard
entirely the direction of thought provided by this particular
covenant.
An aspect of this differentiation appears in the pre-diluvian
Noahic covenant, the first instance of reference to covenant in the
Old Testament (see Gn. vi. 18). In this case Noah was com-
manded to do certain things and the doing of these things on
the part of Noah was ~he indispensable condition of the fulfil-
ment of the grace provided for in the covenant. ' Thus did Noah
according to all that God commanded him, so did he ' (Gn. vi.
22). Yet even in this case, where obedience to commandments
is the means through which the grace of the covenant is to be
realized and enjoyed, we must also take note of the fact that in
other respects this covenant exhibits the features of divine
initiation, determination, establishment, and confirmation which
are so conspicuous in the post-diluvian Noahic covenant. The
idea of compact or agreement is just as conspicuously absent as
in the post-diluvian.
Significantly enough, the commandments which are appended,
compliance with which on the part of Noah is indispensable to
the blessing of preservation, do not in the least suggest mutuality
of agreement or compact. The commandments are added in such
 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
a way that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription
or dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself.
The appended requirements are simply extensions, applications,
expressions, of the grace intimated in the covenant. The directions
are as sovereign as the annunciation of the covenant and they
flow naturally from it so that there is no deflection from the
idea of sovereign dispensation. We may think of Noah as co-
operating with God in carrying out the provisions of the covenant
but the co-operation is quite foreign to that of pact or convention.
It is the co-operation of response which the grace of the cove-
nant constrains and demands.

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

When we come to the Abrahamic covenant we find features which
are entirely new in connection with covenant administration. The
first distinctive feature appears in connection with the initial
reference to the covenant (Gn. xv. 8-18). It is the solemn sanction
by which the Lord confirmed to Abraham the certainty of the
promise that he would inherit the land of Canaan. It is perhaps
the most striking sanction that we have in the whole of Scripture,
particularly if we interpret it as a self-maledictory oath19 in which,
anthropomorphically, God calls upon Himself the curse of dis-
memberment if He does not fulfil to Abraham the promise of
possessing the land. The second distinctive feature is the refer-
ence to keeping and breaking the covenant (Gn. xvii. 9, 10, 14).20
With reference to the first distinctive feature there are certain
19 Cf. Je. xxxiv. 18-20. It has been widely held that the expression n~"1:1 n"1::l·
which is the standard one for making a covenant, is derived from the
cutting asunder of the animals and the ceremony connected with it by
which covenants were confirmed. On this assumption the terminology
is derived from the solemn sanction by which a covenant was sealed.
Gn. xv. 8-18; Je. xxxiv. 18-2o would appear to lend support to the view
(cf. Ps. l. 5). While there does not seem to be any other satisfactory ex-
planation of the expression n~"1:1 n"1::l· yet there is not sufficient evidence
for a conclusive judgment in favour of this widely-held interpretation.
We shall probably have to wait for light which may yet be derived from
other sources.
20 The verb used in verse 14 for breaking is "1"1!:). Various other terms are
used elsewhere in the Old Testament to express this same notion, such
as transgress ( "1::1:11- Dt. xvii. 2), forsake ( :lT:P- Dt. xxix. 24). unstedfast in
( 1~N N? - Ps. lxxviii. 37). The Old Testament likewise speaks of the
quarrel of the covenant (Lv. xxvi. 25) and the curses of the covenant
(Dt. xxix. 2o).
 THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT 17
observations which are pertinent to the question we are now
pursuing.
(1) Though this feature is signally distinctive, it underlines
what we have found already respecting the earlier covenants,
namely, that a covenant is a divine administration, divine in its
origin, establishment, confirmation and fulfilment. It is not
Abraham who passes through between the divided pieces of the
animals; it is the theophany. And the theophany represents God.
The action therefore is divinely unilateral. It is confirmation to
Abraham, not confirmation from him. Abraham here does not
pledge his troth to God by a self-maledictory oath but God con-
descends to pledge troth to His promise, a fact which advertises
the divine sovereignty and faithfulness as brought to bear upon
and as giving character to the covenant constituted. ' In the same
day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy
seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the
great river, the river Euphrates' (Gn. xv. x8).
(2) The distinctiveness of the sanction and the added
solemnity which it involves are correlative with the intimacy and
spirituality of the blessing which the covenant imparts. The
essence of the blessing is that God will be the God of Abraham
and of his seed, the characteristic promise of the Old Testament,
' I will be your God, and ye shall be my people '. In a word,
this consists in union and communion with the Lord.
With reference to the second distinctive feature, namely, the
necessity of keeping the covenant and the warning against break-
ing it, we cannot suppress the inference that the necessity of
keeping is complementary to the added richness, intimacy, and
spirituality of the covenant itself. The spirituality of the
Abrahamic covenant in contrast with the Noahic consists in the
fact that the Abrahamic is concerned with religious relationship
on the highest level, union and communion with God. Where
there is religious relationship there is mutuality and where we
have religious relationship on the highest conceivable level there
mutuality on the highest plane of spirituality must obtain. This
~s just saying that there must be response on the part of the
beneficiary and response on the highest level of religious devotion.
The keeping of the covenant, therefore, so far from being incom-
patible with the nature of the covenant as an administration of
grace, divine in its initiation, confirmation, and fulfilment, is a
necessity arising from the intimacy and spirituality of the reli-
18 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
gious relation involved. The more enhanced our conception of
the sovereign grace bestowed the more we are required to posit
reciprocal faithfulness on the part of the recipient. The demands
of appreciation and gratitude increase with the length and
breadth and depth and height of the favour bestowed. And such
demands take concrete practical form in the obligation to obey
the commandments of God.
We are led to the conclusion that in the Abrahamic covenant
there is no deviation from the idea of covenant as a sovereign
dispensation of grace. We have found that grace is intensified
and expanded rather than diminished and the greater the grace
the more accentuated becomes the sovereignty of its administra-
tion. The necessity of keeping the covenant on the part of men
does not interfere with the divine monergism of dispensation.
The necessity of keeping is but the expression of the magnitude
of the grace bestowed and the spirituality of the relation con-
stituted. Even in this case the notion of compact or agreement
is alien to the nature of the covenant constitution.
It may plausibly be objected, however, that the breaking
of the covenant envisaged in this case interferes with the
perpetuity of the covenant. For does not the possibility of
breaking the covenant imply conditional perpetuity? ' The un-
circumcised male . . . shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant' (Gn. xvii. 14, RV). Without question the
blessings of the covenant and the relation which the covenant
entails cannot be enjoyed or maintained apart from the fulfil-
ment of certain conditions on the part of the beneficiaries. For
when we think of the promise which is the central element of the
covenant, 'I will be your God, and ye shall be my people',
there is necessarily involved, as we have seen, mutuality in the
highest sense. Fellowship is always mutual and when mutuality
ceases fellowship ceases. Hence the reciprocal response of faith
and obedience arises from the nature of the relationship which
the covenant contemplates (cf. Gn. xviii. 17-19, xxii. 16-18). The
obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which
the fulfilment of the promise given to him was contingent and
the obedience of Abraham's seed is represented as the means
through which the promise given to Abraham would be accom-
plished. There is undoubtedly the fulfilment of certain conditions
and these are summed up in obeying the Lord's voice and keeping
His covenant.
 THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT 19
It is not quite congruous, however, to speak of these conditions
as conditions of the covenant. For when we speak thus we are
distinctly liable to be understood as implying that the covenant
is not to be regarded as dispensed until the conditions are ful-
filled and that the conditions are integral to the establishment of
the covenant relation. And this would not provide a true or
accurate account of the covenant. The covenant is a sovereign
dispensation of God's grace. It is grace bestowed and a relation
established. The grace dispensed and the relation established
do not wait for the fulfilment of certain conditions on the part
of those to whom the grace is dispensed. Grace is bestowed and
the relation established by sovereign divine administration. How
then are we to construe the conditions of which we have spoken?
The continued enjoyment of this grace and of the relation estab-
lished is contingent upon the fulfilment of certain conditions.
For apart from the fulfilment of these conditions the grace
bestowed and the relation established are meaningless. Grace
bestowed implies a subject and reception on the part of that
subject. The relation established implies mutuality. But the
conditions in view are not really conditions of bestowal. They
are simply the reciprocal responses of faith, love and obedience,
apart from which the enjoyment of the covenant blessing and
of the covenant relation is inconceivable. In a word, keeping
the covenant presupposes the covenant relation as established
rather than the condition upon which its establishment is
contingent.
It is when viewed in this light that the breaking of the covenant
takes on an entirely different complexion. It is not the failure
to meet the terms of a pact nor failure to respond to the offer
of favourable terms of contractual agreement. It is unfaithful-
ness to a relation constituted and to grace dispensed. By
breaking the covenant what is broken is not the condition of
bestowal but the condition of consummated fruition.
It should be noted also that the necessity of keeping the
covenant is bound up with the particularism of this covenant.
The covenant does not yield its blessing to all indiscriminately.
The discrimination which this covenant exemplifies accentuates
the sovereignty of God in the bestowal of its grace and the fulfil-
ment of its promises. This particularization is correlative with
the spirituality of the grace bestowed and the relation constituted
and it is also consonant with the exactitude of its demands. A
20 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
covenant which yields its blessing indiscriminately is not one that
can be kept or broken. We see again, therefore, that the intensi-
fication which particularism illustrates serves to accentuate the
keeping which is indispensable to the fruition of the covenant
grace.

THE MOSAIC COVENANT

The Mosaic covenant offers more plausible support to the con-
ception of compact than does any other covenant of God with
men. Furthermore, the notion of prescribed conditions would
appear to receive more support from the circumstances of this
covenant than from those of any other. Such considerations as
these have been the occasion for constructions which set the
Mosaic covenant in sharp contrast both with the Abrahamic
covenant and the New Testament.
At the outset we must remember that the idea of conditional
fulfilment is not something peculiar to the Mosaic covenant.
We have been faced quite poignantly with this very question in
connection with the Abrahamic covenant. And since this
feature is there patent, it does not of itself provide us with any
reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different
from those of the Abrahamic. Another preliminary observation
is that the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt is
stated expressly to be in pursuance of the Abrahamic covenant.
With reference to the Egyptian bondage we read: ' And God
heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with
Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob ' (Ex. ii. 24). The only
interpretation of this is that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt
and the bringing of them into the land of promise is in fulfilment
of the covenant promise to Abraham respecting the possession of
the land of Canaan (Ex. iii. 16, J7, vi. 4-8; Pss. cv. 8-12, 42-45.
cvi. 45). A third observation is that the spirituality of relation-
ship which is the centre of the Abrahamic covenant is also at the
centre of the Mosaic. ' And I will take you to me for a people,
and I will be to you a God' (Ex. vi. 7; cf. Dt. xxix. 13). This
fact links the Mosaic very closely with the Abrahamic and shows
that religious relationship on the highest level is contemplated
in both, namely, union and communion with God. We must not,
therefore, suppress or discount these important considerations
that the Mosaic covenant was made with Israel as the sequel to
 THE MOSAIC COVENANT 2I
their deliverance from Egypt, a deliverance wrought in pursuance
of the gracious promises given by covenant to Abraham, wrought
with the object of bringing to fulfilment the promise given to
Abraham that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan, and a
deliverance wrought in order to make Israel His own peculiar
and adopted people.
The first express reference to the covenant made with Israel
at Sinai occurs in connection with keeping the covenant. ' Now
therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,
then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people:
for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation ' (Ex. xix. 5, 6). The next explicit
reference appears as the sequel to the promise of the people, ' All
that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be obedient ' (Ex.
xxiv. 7, RV) and Moses sprinkled the blood and said, 'Behold,
the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words' (Ex. xxiv. 8).
The foregoing references as well as other coBsiderations might
create the impression that the making of the covenant had to
wait for the voluntary acceptance on the part of the people and
their promise to obey and keep it. A close study of these
passages will not bear out such an interpretation. It is an im-
portation contrary to the texts themselves and one that has
deflected the course of thought on this subject. Exodus xix. 5
does not say, ' If ye will obey my voice and accept the terms
stipulated, then I will make my covenant with you'. What is
said is, ' If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,
then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me '. The covenant is
conceived of as dispensed, as in operation, and as constituting a
certain relation, in the keeping of it and in obeying God's voice.
The covenant is actually presupposed in the keeping of it. Un-
doubtedly there is a conditional feature to the words, ' If ye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant '. But what is
conditioned upon obedience and keeping of the covenant is the
enjoyment of the blessing which the covenant contemplates. In
like manner in Exodus xxiv. 7. 8, the covenant is not to be re-
garded as contingent upon the promise of the people, so that the
dispensing of the covenant had to wait for this promise. And
verse 8 is not to be construed as if then the covenant had been
inaugurated or as if acceptance on the part of the people com-
pleted the process of constituting the covenant relation. The
22 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
covenant had already been established and the blood was simply
the confirmation or seal of the covenant established and of t:he
relation constituted. This gives a different perspective to our
interpretation of the Mosaic covenant, and we find that the
Mosaic covenant also is a sovereign administration of grace,
divinely initiated, established, confirmed, and fulfilled. Later
references in the Pentateuch confirm this interpretation of
sovereign appointment or dispensation (Ex. xxxiv. 27, 28; Lv.
xxiv. 8; Nu. xviii. 19, xxv. 13; cf. Ne. xiii. 29).
The question of the condition referred to above does call,
however, for some consideration. How does the condition of
obedience comport with the concept of a monergistic administra-
tion of grace? The answer must follow the lines which have
been delineated above in connection with the keeping of the
Abrahamic covenant. What needs to be emphasized now is that
the Mosaic covenant in respect of the condition of obedience is
not in a different category from the Abrahamic. It is too fre-
quently assumed that the conditions prescribed in connection
with the Mosaic covenant place the Mosaic dispensation in a
totally different category as respects grace, on the one hand, and
demand or obligation, on the other. In reality there is nothing
that is principally different in the necessity of keeping the
covenant and of obedience to God's voice, which proceeds
from the Mosaic covenant, from that which is involved in the
keeping required in the Abrahamic. In both cases the keynotes
are obeying God's voice and keeping the covenant (cf. Gn. xviii.
17-19; Ex. xix. 5, 6).

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

If the Mosaic covenant does not disclose deviation from the

fundamental notion of a covenant, namely, that it is a sovereign
dispensation, divine in its origin, establishment, confirmation,
and fulfilment, we should not expect that subsequent covenant
administrations would evince a radically different conception.
Indeed so basic to the whole subsequent process of redemptive
history are the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants that the later
developments would be expected to confirm and intensify what
we have found to be the specific character of covenant adminis-
tration. Although the word covenant does not occur in 2 Samuel
vii. 12-17, we must conclude that this is specifically the annun-
 THE DA VIDIC COVENANT

dation to David, which is elsewhere spoken of as the covenant

made with David. In Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4 the terms of 2 Samuel
vii. I2-I7 are clearly reiterated. 'I have made a covenant with
my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant: thy seed will I
establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.'
And the same is true in later verses of the same Psalm (cf. verses
26ff.). ' My covenant shall stand fast with him ' (verse 28). ' My
covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
my lips ' (verse 34; cf. Ps. cxxxii. I Iff.). A study of these passages
will show that the most striking feature is the security, the deter-
minateness, and immutability of the divine promise. Nothing
could serve to verify the conception of the covenant which has
been elicited from earlier instances more than the emphasis in
these passages (relating to the Davidic covenant) upon the
certainty of fulfilment arising from the promise and oath of God.
Security and certainty as characterizing the covenant could not
be more plainly demonstrated than by the parallelism : ' I have
made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my
servant '. And David reflects this note of certainty when, at the
close of his career, his resort for consolation and assurance was
nothing else than the covenant of his God: 'Verily my house is
not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting cove-
nant, ordered in all things, and sure: for it is all my salvation,
and all my desire, although he maketh it not to grow' (2 Sa.
xxiii. 5). No example of covenant in the Old Testament more
clearly supports the thesis that covenant is sovereign promise,
promise solemnized by the sanctity of an oath, immutable in its
security and divinely confirmed as respects the certainty of its
fulfilment.
These Davidic promises are, of course, messianic; it is in Christ
that David's seed is established for ever and his throne built up
to all generations. In this connection we cannot overlook the
relevance of those passages in Isaiah in which the servant of the
Lord is said to be given for a covenant of the people. The prophet
introduces this messianic personage with the words, ' Behold, my
servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth '
(Is. xlii. I). And he quickly adds, 'I the Lord have called thee
in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,
and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
Gentiles ' (verse 6). Later he reiterates : • And I will preserve
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people ' (Is. xlix. 8).
 24 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
The co-ordination of Isaiah lv. 3, 4 is equally signficant: ' Incline
your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live; and
I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure
mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the
peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples' (Rv). Nothing
less than sovereign dispensation and unilateral bestowment will
comport with the donation of the servant as a covenant of the
people. Any notion of agreement or compact would ruthlessly
violate the sovereignty of the grace involved and the divine
monergism of the action entailed. And no doubt this unusual
way of expressing the bestowment of grace is dictated by the con-
sideration that nothing accentuates the certainty and security of
promise and fulfilment more than to invest the assurance given
with the sanction of covenant. Furthermore, in these Isaianic
passages the inference is inevitable that the everlasting covenant
which the Lord makes with the people is correlative with the fact
that He has given the servant as a covenant of the people. The
security of the covenant with the people is grounded in the
security of the donation of the servant as a covenant of the
people. And when Malachi calls the messenger ' the messenger
of the covenant' (Mal. iii. 1), there is the implication that not
only is the Messiah given for a covenant of the people but that
when He is sent forth to discharge His office it is in terms of the
covenant that He does this. 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 cove-
nant 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 il) a sovereign
donation of the child born and the Son given (Is. ix. 6). There
is nothing that corresponds to the contractual in the declaration
• I will give thee for a covenant of the people ' nor in the promise
' I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure
mercies of David '. Elsewhere in this prophecy of Isaiah it is
the certitude and immutability of God's grace that is thrust into
prominence in connection with covenant disclosure. ' This is as
the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters
 COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that

I would not be wrath with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the moun-
tains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my lovingkind-
ness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my
peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee ' (Is.
liv. 9. 10; cf. lix. 21). This passage shows that the post-diluvian
Noahic covenant provides the pattern or type of what is involved
in God's covenant of peace with His people, namely, that it is
an oath-bound and oath-certified assurance of irrevocable grace
and promise.

COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

When we come to the New Testament a goodly number of the

instances of diatheke are references to Old Testament covenants,
sometimes in quotation from the Old Testament (Lk. i. 72; Acts
iii. 35· vii. 8; Rom. ix. 4, xi. 27; 2 Cor. iii. 14; Gal. iii. 15, 17,
iv. 24; Eph. ii. 12; Heb. viii. 9, ix. 4, 15, 20). There are others
which refer to Old Testament promises, though not specifically
to Old Testament covenants.
There are instructive lessons, pertinent to our inquiry, to be
derived from these Old Testament allusions. The first (Lk. i.
72) is illumining in this respect. When Zacharias says that the
Lord, the God of Israel, had remembered His holy covenant, the
oath which He had sworn to Abraham, it is apparent that he
construes the redemptive events which form the subject of his
doxology as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. The
language of his blessing is unmistakably reminiscent of the
language used when God had been preparing His people for the
imminent deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. We cannot
escape the inference that the redemptive accomplishment signal-
ized by the coming of Christ found its historical prototype in
the redemption from Egypt. In Zacharias' esteem it is the same
fidelity to covenant promise and oath that is exemplified in the
accomplishment of redemption through Christ and in the
redemption from Egypt by the hand of Moses and Aaron. This
indicates that the undergirding principle of the thought of pious
Israelites at this time was the unity and continuity of God's
covenant revelation and action, a principle which came to spon-
taneous expression in the thanksgiving of Zacharias and bears
the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. · It was by inspiration that
26 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
Zacharias spoke, for we are told that he ' was filled with the Holy
Ghost, and prophesied ' (Lk. i. 67).
Another observation worthy of note is the occurrence of the
plural ' covenants ' in reference to the privilege of Israel (Rom.
ix. 4; Eph. ii. 12). Apparently the New Testament writers did
not think of the peculiar prerogatives of Israel in terms simply
of the Abrahamic covenant even though this covenant is given
very distinct prominence in other passages. And of more signi-
ficance is the fact that Paul speaks of these covenants as ' the
covenants of promise' (Eph. ii. 12). He does not hesitate to
place the various covenants which constituted the distinctiveness
of Israel in the category of promise just as he does not hesitate
to list the ' covenants ' together with the adoption and the glory
and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises
(Rom. ix. 4). In this we are advised of the direction in which
we are to seek for the New Testament conception of covenant.
Most significant of all, perhaps, in this classification of New
Testament passages is Galatians iii. 15, J7. Paul's emphasis here is
upon the immutability, security, inviolability of covenant.
' Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been con-
firmed, no one makes it void, or adds thereto.' ' A covenant
confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred
and thirty years after, does not disannul, so as to make the
promise of no effect.' Whatever view we may entertain regarding
the precise import of diatheke in this passage, whether it is the
testamentary or the dispensatory, we cannot escape the governing
thought of the apostle, namely, that a human covenant is irre-
vocable once it has been confirmed and that it is that same
inviolability which characterizes the Abrahamic covenant and
therefore, also, the promise which the covenant embraced. Here,
without question, covenant appears as a promise and dispensa-
tion of grace, divinely established, confirmed, and fulfilled,
inviolable in its provisions and of permanent validity.

(a) The new covenant and the old

When we come to those passages in the New Testament which
deal specifically with the new covenant in contrast with the old
it is highly significant that the contrast between the new economy
and the old is not expressed in terms of difference between
covenant and something else not a covenant. The contrast is
within the ambit of covenant. This would lead us to expect
 COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

that the basic idea of covenant which we find in the Old Testa-
ment is carried over into the New. We are confirmed in this
expectation when we take account of the fact that the new
covenant is the fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham
{Lk. i. 72; Gal. iii. I5ff.). The new economy as covenant attaches
itself to the Old Testament covenant promise and cannot be con-
trasted with Old Testament covenant in respect of that which
constitutes the essence of covenant grace and promise. We can
express the fact that the new covenant is the expansion and
fulfilment of the Abrahamic by saying that it was just because
the promise to Abraham had the bonded and oath-bound character
of a covenant that its realization in the fulness of the time was
inviolably certain. The new covenant in respect of its being a
covenant does not differ from the Abrahamic as a sovereign
administration of grace, divine in its inception, establishment,
confirmation, and fulfilment. The most conclusive evidence,
however, is derived from a study of the New Testament respect-
ing the nature of the new covenant. We shall find that the
features of the covenant are the same as those we found in con-
nection with covenant in the Old Testament.
When our Lord said that His blood was the blood of the
covenant that was shed for many for the remission of sins and
that the cup of the last supper was the new covenant in His blood
(Mt. xxvi. 28; Mk. xiv. 24; Lk. xxii. 20; I Cor. xi. 25), we cannot
but regard the covenant as a designation of the sum-total of
grace, blessing, truth, and relationship comprised in that redemp-
tion which His blood has secured. Covenant must refer to the
bestowment and the relationship secured by the sacrificial blood
which He shed. It is the fulness of grace purchased by His blood
and conveyed by it. By way of comparison there is an allusion,
no doubt, to the blood by which the old covenant, the Mosaic,
had been sealed (Ex. xxiv. 6-8; cf. Heb. ix. I8). And since the
new is contrasted with the old it cannot be that the contrast
inheres in any retraction or dilution of the grace which we have
found to be the essence of covenant under the Old Testament.
Apart from the reference to the institution of the Lord's Supper
in I Corinthians xi. 25, the only passage in Paul where he refers
expressly to the new covenant is 2 Corinthians iii. 6. Here, how-
ever, we have the most illumining reflection upon the nature of
the new covenant. It is the ministration of the Spirit as the
Spirit of life (verses 6, 8). It is the ministration of righteousness
28 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
(verse 9), and of liberty (verse 17). Most characteristically of all,
it is the ministry of that transfiguration by which we are trans-
formed into the image of the Lord Himself. When we assess the
significance of such blessings in terms of New Testament teaching
and specifically of1 Pauline teaching we see that Paul conceives of
the new covenant as that which ministers the highest blessing and
constitutes the relationship to God which is the crown and goal
of the redemptive process and the apex of the religious
relationship.
When we turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and particularly
to those passages in which the contrast is drawn between the
inferiority of the Mosaic covenant and the transcendent excel-
lence of the new and better covenant, we find that the conception
of covenant wh1ch we have already found is applied to the highest
degree. However accentuated may be the problem connected
with the writer's evaluation of the Mosaic covenant, which he
contrasts with the new, the resolution of this question will not
interfere with our understanding of the conception he entertains
respecting the new and better covenant. It is a covenant with a
more excellent ministry (Heb. viii. 6), that is to say, more excel-
lent in respect of the access to God secured and the fellowship
maintained. To whatever extent the old covenant was the means
of establishing the peculiar relation of the Lord to Israel as their
God and their relation to Him as His people, the new covenant
places this older intimacy of relation in the shadow. For it is
the new covenant par excellence which brings to realization the
promise ' I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a
people ' (Heb. viii. ro). In other words, the spiritual relationship
which lay at the centre of the covenant grace disclosed in both
the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants reaches its ripest fruition
in the new covenant. So grace is the enhancement that a com-
parative contrast can be stated as if it were absolute. The new
covenant is enacted upon better promises (Heb. viii. 6). We
found that bonded and oath-bound promise constitutes the
essence of the covenant conception. In the new covenant the
promises are better and they are placed in the forefront as defin-
ing its superiority. Again, the new covenant is not indifferent to
law. It is not contrasted with the old because the old had law
and the new has not. The superiority of the new does not consist
in the abrogation of that law but in its being brought into more
intimate relation to us and more effective fulfilment in us. ' I
 COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
will put my laws into their mind, and upon their hearts will I
write them' (Heb. viii. 10). The new covenant is the dispenser
of the forgiveness of sins: ' I will be merciful to their unright-
eousnesses, and their sins will I remember no more ' (Heb.
viii. 12). Finally, the new covenant is one that universalizes the
diffusion of knowledge : ' They shall all know me from the least
unto the greatest of them' (Heb. viii. n). In all of this we have
the covenant as a sovereign administration of grace and promise,
constituting the relation of communion with God, coming to its
richest and fullest expression. In a word, the new covenant is
covenant as we have found it to be all along the line of redemp-
tive revelation and accomplishment. But it is covenant in all
these respects on the highest level of achievement. If the mark
of covenant is divinity in initiation, administration, confirmation,
and fulfilment, here we have divinity at the apex of its disclosure
and activity.
(b) The concept of 'testament'
No instance of diatheke in the New Testament is more relevant
to the thesis now being developed than Heb. ix. 16, q. There
have been interpreters who have taken the position that even
in this passage the word should not be rendered or construed as
testament but as covenant. 21 It seems to me that Geerhardus Vos
has effectively dealt with the fallacy of this interpretation.22 We
may assume, therefore, that in these two verses the writer does
introduce the testamentary notion of a last will. It is admittedly
an exceptional use of the term as far as the New Testament is
concerned,23 and it is introduced for the specific purpose of
21 Cf. B. F. Westcott: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1903), pp. 300ff.;
David Russell: A Familiar Survey of the. Old and New Covenants (Edinburgh,
1824), pp. 137ff.; Thomas Scott: The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ ad Heb. ix. r6, 17. Scott is, however, not dogmatic.
In reference to the interpretation which regards the death as that of the
sacrifice rather than of the testator he says that he cannot but think that
this is the most obvious and ' consonant to the apostle's general way of
reasoning '.
22 See ' Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke ' in The Princeton Theological
Review, Vol. XIII, pp. 6r4ff.; cf. John Owen: An Exposition of the Epistle
to the Hebrews ad Heb. ix. r6, 17.
23 It may well be that it is the testamentary idea that Paul uses in Gal. iii. 15.
If so, it is obviously a last will or testament which could be regarded as
immutably confirmed before the death of the testator, as in Syro-Grecian
law, in contradistinction from that referred to in Heb. ix. r6, 17 which
became operative with the death of the testator (cf. Vos: op. cit., pp. 6nff.).
 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
illustrating the transcendent efficacy or effectiveness of the death
of Christ in securing the benefits of covenant grace. Just as the
disponement made in a last will goes into effect with the death of
the testator and is tnereupon of full force and validity for the
benefit of the legatee, so, since Christ through the eternal Spirit
offered Himself without spot to God, the blessing of the new
covenant becomes ours. Specifically in terms of the context, our
consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God
and we receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. The testa-
mentary provisions referred to in verses 16 and 17 are introduced
simply for the purpose of enforcing the efficacy of Jesus' death in
bringing into effect the blessings of the new covenant. There is
no more possibility or feasibility of interference with the effective
application of the blessings of the covenant than there is of
interfering with a testamentary disponement once the testator has
died. This use of the testamentary provision of Roman law to
illustrate the inviolable security accruing from the sacrificial
death of Christ serves to underline the unilateral character of the
new covenant. One thing is apparent that a testament is a uni-
lateral disposition of possession. How totally foreign to the
notion of compact, contract, or agreement is the disposition or
dispensation which can be illustrated in respect of its effective
operation by a last will ! This occasional use of diatheke as
testament cannot comport with a concept of covenant which in
any way derives its definition from the idea of mutual agreement.

CONCLUSION
This brings to a close our review of the evidence bearing upon
the nature of God's covenant with men. From the beginning of
God's disclosures to men in terms of covenant we find a unity of
conception which is to the effect that a divine covenant is a
sovereign administration of grace and of promise. It is not com-
pact or contract or agreement that provides the con~titutive or
governing idea but that of dispensation in the sense of disposition.
This central and basic concept is applied, however, to a variety
of situations and the precise character of the grace bestowed and
of the promise given differs in the differing covenant administra-
tions. The differentiation does not reside in any deviation from
this basic conception but simply consists in the differing degrees
of richness and fulness of the grace bestowed and of the promise
 CONCLUSION 31
given. Preponderantly in the usage of Scripture covenant refers
to grace and promise specifically redemptive. The successive
covenants are coeval with the successive epochs in the unfolding
and accomplishment of God's redemptive will. Not only are
they coeval, they are correlative with these epochs. And not
only are they correlative, they are themselves constitutive of
these epochs so that redemptive revelation and accomplishment
become identical with covenant revelation and accomplishment.
When we appreciate this fact we come to perceive that the
epochal strides in the unfolding of redemptive revelation are at
the same time epochal advances in the disclosure of the riches of
covenant grace. This progressive enrichment of the covenant
grace bestowed is not, however, a retraction of or deviation from
the concept which is constitutive from the beginning but, as we
should expect, an expansion and intensification of it. Hence,
when we come to the climax and apex of covenant administra-
tion in the New Testament epoch, we have sovereign grace and
promise dispensed on the highest level because it is grace bestowed
and promise given in regard to the attainment of the highest
end conceivable for men. It is no wonder then that the new
covenant is .called the everlasting covenant. As covenant reve-
lation has progressed throughout the ages it has reached its con-
summation in the new covenant, and the new covenant is not
wholly diverse in principle and character from the covenants
which have preceded it and prepared for it, but it is itself the
complete realization and embodiment of that sovereign grace
which was the constitutive principle of all the covenants. And
when we remember that covenant is not only bestowment of
grace, not only oath-bound promise, but also relationship with
God in that which is the crown and goal of the whole process
of religion, namely, union and communion with God, we discover
again that the new covenant brings this relationship also to the
highest level of achievement. At the centre of covenant revelation
as its constant refrain is the assurance ' I will be your God, and
ye shall be my people '. The new covenant does not differ from
the earlier covenants because it inaugurates this peculiar intimacy.
It differs simply because it brings to the ripest and richest fruition
the relationship epitomized in that promise. In this respect also
the new covenant is an everlasting covenant - there is no further
expansion or enrichment. The mediator of the new covenant is
none other than God's own Son, the effulgence of the Father's
 THE COVENANT OF GRACE
glory and the express image of His substance, the heir of all
things. He is its surety also. And because there can be no higher
mediator or surety than the Lord of glory, since there can be no
sacrifice more transcendent in its efficacy and finality than the
sacrifice of Him who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without spot unto God, this covenant cannot give place to an-
other. Grace and truth, promise and fulfilment, have in this
covenant received their pleroma, and it is in terms of the new
covenant that it will be said, ' Behold, the tabernacle of God is
with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his
people, and God himself shall be with them ' (Rev. xxi. 3).