New Hampshire Conference 2001

Message 3
Pastor Kevin Hartley

 Introduction

We have thus far established a new covenant view of the Adamic administration and addressed the nations and their place in God’s covenants. It is incumbent upon us then to take in hand the matter of defining the nature of the biblical covenants and their relationship to one another. The covenants are numerous, beginning explicitly with the Noahaic. There are the covenants of Abraham, Sinai, and David, and the new covenant, all agreed upon as of paramount importance in redemptive history. There are though numerous other covenants that interleave the biblical record. Most thought are time specific and are not directly related to the overall redemptive scheme, as we shall demonstrate from the new testament record.

The New Testament only refers to three of the previous covenants; the covenant made with Abraham, the covenant made at Sinai, termed the old covenant, and the covenant promised in Jeremiah, called the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is mentioned directly in Galatians and Acts, and indirectly in Hebrews. The old covenant is mentioned 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Hebrews. The new covenant is mentioned in the gospels, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and indirectly in Galatians. The possibility of a reference to Noah is only in the epistle of Peter and the Davidic in the conceptual language of the kingdom of God. Thus there stands in the biblical record a particular emphasis upon the role of the three biblical covenants made with Abraham, Israel at Mt. Sinai, and the new covenant of Jesus Christ. We shall then narrow our focus to these three covenants. The other two of note are not insignificant, but outside the scope and allotment of this day. It would behoove us in the future to direct the other two covenants at length. I shall simply categorize them in the same fashion as I shall the Abrahamic covenant, and term both the Noahic and David covenants as promissory covenants.

There are three biblical covenants of monumental significance in the biblical record; the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the new covenant. Each are distinctly different in terms of their place, time, nature, and purpose. They are similar, in that they are all deemed covenants, but the differences are substantial and not merely accidental. A New Testament, new covenant perspective of these three epical covenants lends forth the following thesis:

Thesis: The Holy Scriptures attest to three specific types of biblical covenants, that being the covenant of promise, the covenant of law, and the covenant of grace, properly deemed the covenant made with Abraham, the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and the new covenant. In order to prove this thesis the text of Galatians 4 shall be exposited, in order to arrive at a fitting definition of each form of covenant and an understanding of their interrelation.

Text: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Gal. 4.24

This text is found in the fourth chapter of Galatians, in the midst of a rebuke by the apostle Paul of the gentiles in Galatia, who were professors of Christ in a church established through Paul’s ministry. The direct charge against them was apostasy, O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you (3.1)? The grounds for this charge was their turning from the grace of Jesus Christ to the old covenant administration of the law, this only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith (3.2-5)? The didactic and hortatory method of the apostle in arresting their apostasy was a reaffirmation of their assurance of their equal standing with the Judaizers in the promises of God, even being Gentiles, Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham (3.7). The means to their assurance was through a biblical lesson defining, identifying, and explaining the three significant biblical covenants, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (3.16), and, Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (3.19), and, Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (4.28). The objective of the apostle in his didactic retort of the Galatians is their understanding of the substance of the covenants and the consequent clarity in their understanding and practice in the realm of new covenant living, cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman (4.30), and, stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (5.1). Instrumental to the calamity in Galatia was the Judaizers confounding of the covenants and their ignorance of the true substance of those covenants.

The apostle Paul’s chosen, and inspired, epistolary method was to first offer explanation and then provide both proof and illustration of that elucidation. The fourth chapter of Galatians predominantly illustrative of his teaching, is both personal, and poignant. He pours forth tears upon the pages written to the Galatians, writing, they zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you (4.17-20). With this final plea he then turns to a lengthy illustration of his point, before beginning to admonish and instruct his readers in the closing two chapters of the epistle. It is Paul’s illustration in Galatians 4: 18-31, which is the clearest explanation of the place and substance of the three epical covenants of note, summarized in these words, which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants (4.24). From this text then observe:

  1. The antecedent to the relative, viz. that of the biblical chronicle of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and their children, are illustrative of Paul’s substantive view of the biblical covenants of note, as indicated by the words which are an allegory.
  2. The explanation afforded the allegory, viz. that the symbolism depicts two biblical covenants as seen in the words, for these are two covenants.
  3. The substance of the particulars, viz. that Paul by way of illustration defines, separates, and substantiates the biblical covenants.
  4. The utility of the allegory, viz. that the reader, possessing a full, clear, and defining view of the true distinctive and interrelation of the biblical covenants, might properly association himself with the biblical record.

Doctrines. A substantial and defining knowledge of the three biblical covenants of note is paramount to proper Christian association and conduct. If we misunderstand the nature and connect of the epical covenants of scripture we are in grave danger. This is no minor theological note or inconsequential matter to the apostle. Paul views this lesson one of grave importance. Thus it behooves us all to have a proper understanding of the substance and interrelation of the biblical covenants if we are to possess proper theology and if that theology is to lead to suitable practice. I would liken this lesson to this image; back in the days when the wall stood separating east Germany from the west, men, women, and children, would venture their lives for the pursuit of freedom, pressing into the land of liberty, wherein they could live free of the oppression of their current state. This is much like the souls venture into the scriptures, seeking to understand the biblical record, that it might live in the liberty of Jesus Christ. In order to elucidate the substance and relation of the three epical biblical covenants, we shall unpack this verse and note that there are two natural divisions to the allegory and its explanation.

  1. First there is the division of the first covenant. Understand first in reference to first by way of explanation rather than pre-eminence or occurrence. Paul turns first to explain the allegory of Hagar and its likeness to the old covenant. In his explanation we acquire a substantive view of that covenant. We shall then examine four substantive aspects of that covenant.
  2. First we state that the old covenant is not directly influentialin the broad redemptive scheme. We would call the old covenant a parenthesis in the redemptive scheme. Dispensationalists have at times called the church age a parenthesis, we call that old covenant the parenthesis. Just as the story of Hagar and Ishmael disrupted for a moment the story of Genesis and God’s election and promise to Abraham, so did the old covenant interrupt God’s true design, which is consummated in our day on earth. The old covenant was predominately a non-intrusive and non-supplemental covenant.
    1. The old covenant is non-intrusive in redemptive history as seen in the words which is Agar and born after the flesh. By intrusive I mean that it is non-interfering in the redemptive plan of God. From the story of Genesis we know that the promise precedes the introduction of Hagar into the story, in fact, her introduction is long after the promise is given. We might say that the story of Hagar is an interlude or parenthesis, by which a lesson is taught or a matter addressed, but its place in the overarching scheme of promise is non-meddling. Thus Paul writes, and this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect (3.17). The old covenant, which is the first covenant explained by Paul, is first a non-intrusive covenant. It is introduced after the fact of God’s promise made to Abraham. When Paul says that the subsequent covenant cannot disannul the former covenant he is indicating that the old covenant was non-instrumental in the accomplishment of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus it is explained as being supplemental, in that it is introduced into the sequence in a non-intrusive manner.
    2. Equally we would say that it is not substantially supplemental to the old covenant. There is no denying that it was indirectly supplemental in the redemptive scheme, as Paul denotes, wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (3.19). It served as an interlude in the story; it was a pause given for a pedagogical function. Thus Paul writes, but before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (3.23,24). We would understand a schoolmaster as one that is disciplinary. The words paideéŒa and paideuŒoµ relate to the upbringing of children, who need direction, teaching, instruction, and discipline. The rabbis develop a view that sees God’s education as essentially correction. The word well serves the design of the old covenant, as a disciplinary covenant, in which the people, like children, were more related as slaves then sons. Thus we say that the covenant was supplemental in a demonstrative, or, pedagogical fashion, in that it demonstrated the severity of punishment, the need for constitutional change, and the disobedience of men’s souls.
  1. Legal as seen in the allusion to Mount Sinai and the words born after the flesh. The old covenant was mediated by way of demands and threats. It is the covenant which God made according to these words, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD (Lv. 18.5).The whole sense of the Hagar narrative is the fact that it was man laboring to fulfill God's promise. Thus we can understand the full substance of the old covenant as representative of man laboring to fulfill God’s promise of union with him and the right to the title children of promise. We know the failure of that union between Abraham and Hagar and that Ishamael was not the child of promise, but was born after the flesh, having no place in the household of Abraham. Thus the Mosaic covenant is primarily a covenant of works, one in which men labored for right, but failed to attain to that right. They sought the promise by way of works, through the law, and miserably failed to further the fulfillment of God’s promise in any way. In the end then the fleshly labor of Israel was non-instrumental in bringing about the promise of God. The old covenant merely served to further their own separation from God, since they in the end, when the fullness of time had come, were cast out as Ishmael and were no partakers of promise. Like Ishmael they would continue to plague the true Israel of God from afar, just as the Israel of the flesh through the church age has been a thorn in our Israel’s side.
  2. Restrictiveas seen in its qualitative derivation of bondage. Despite the fact that Ishmael was born from the loins of Abraham, he had no lasting benefit from that natural birth; neither has a Jew any lasting benefit or union with God, simply because he is a Jew. The restrictions upon Ishmael were the same placed upon a slave. He was not given the title to the claim the child of Abraham. He had no part in the inheritance God had promised Abraham. Such is the restrictive nature of the old covenant. Thus under it simply by association were not granted the rights and titles of promise. John wrote, but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1.12,13). The bondson would not dwell with Isaac, he would not partake of the promise, and he would not be of the household of Abraham. The Jew of the old covenant, apart from faith, equally would be merely a bondson as Ishmael. He would appear by birth and association to be a child of Abraham, but as Christ would say, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father…Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (Jn. 8.39ff).

The restriction of the old covenant is best described in contrast to the liberty of the new covenant. We have no threat or constraint put upon us, as a child in a house under the tutelage of a schoolmaster. We have the love of our father promised, assured, and inseparable from us. We have the adoption, the right to the title the children of promise, the inheritance, and union with Christ, the true Son of God. We have peace with God; we have him as our father. We have his care, his protection, and his salvation. We have everything Ishmael did not have when he was cast out of Abraham’s home. We have a house, a land, and rest, which only those in Christ possess, and it does not come by way of the old covenant, but by way of the new.

  1. Destructiveas seen in the reference to Jerusalem which now is and the command to cast her out. If we considered the person of Ishmael we remember that he was a threat to Isaac, he hated Isaac, he sought to possess what Isaac had by right. We know that he berated Isaac and was a burden to the love Sarah had for her son. We know that he was an offense to Isaac and the household of Abraham. Thus we know that he had no place in the household of Abraham but by way of necessity was cast out. He was an intrusion upon the good name of Abraham, a remembrance of his weakness and labor according to the flesh, and he was an offense to the child of promise.

So then do we understand the old covenant to be an offense when its place in our religion remains to our day. Paul exhorts the Galatians to cast out the legalism of that covenant. He wants it all gone; that law, that pedagogue, that labor, and that image. He wants nothing of it remaining in the household of grace. Therefore we of the new covenant must clean house of Ishmael. He has no place in our religion. Legalism, works of the flesh, the law covenant, it is not to be wed with our covenant. We are to possess Christ as though Ishmael was but a bad memory, a brief interlude toward the coming of Abraham’s promised seed, and we must not permit the bondson back into the household of faith. Covenant theology would seek to house us with Ishmael, we can have nothing of it. Dispensationalism would have us think Ishmael the true son of promise, we can hear nothing of it. We are the true Israel of God, the true children of promise, and the true heirs in Christ. Christ is ours, Jerusalem above is our mother, and we are quit of that old covenant and members of the new. By way of summation then the old covenant is a mere interlude, non-intrusive, non-substantive, a mere parenthesis in redemptive history. It is a legal covenant having no claim or place in the covenants of promise and fulfillment.

  1. Second there is the division of the second covenant. Again, understand secondin reference to second by way of explanation and neither triviality nor incidence. In the allegory of Sarah then there is reference to two separate covenants; the Abrahamic and the new. This division then possesses these two branches: those of the promise and those partakers of the consequence of that promise.
  1. Those of the promise are those considered of the covenant of promise. The Abrahamic promise was a promissory covenant. It was primary and anticipatory in the redemptive design. The promise is not the fulfillment it is merely the promise. When God said to Abraham, look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness (Gn. 15. 5,6), and, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee (Gn 17.4ff), Abraham was merely in possession of a promise, he was not in possession of Isaac, or, as we know, of Christ to whom his faith looked. The covenant made with Abraham was God making a promise to Abraham of a seed and that was merely a promise. Thus the Abrahamic covenant can be likened unto Sarah before her impregnation; she was barren, old, and possessing a dead womb. Never had a child come from her womb and never had she been a mother. She was a barren woman. The Abrahamic promise was a barren promise, in that it did not possess what was promised, but it was simply promised. There were stars to look at to remind Abraham of God’s promise, there was sand on the shore that he could try and number to excite his hope, but all it could do was marvel that God could call him the father of many nations when as yet he had no heir. The Abrahamic covenant then can be defined as a promissory covenant. It is not in possession of the promise but anticipates it. The Mosaic covenant was introduced, just as Ishmael to Abraham’s household, as a parenthesis and interlude in the progress of the fulfillment of the promise. All that went on in the interlude had no bearing upon God’s promise to Abraham, because the promise was to Sarah and not Hagar. Thus while Sarah’s womb remained barren and the bondwomen gave birth, the promise was still a promise. God could look at Ishmael and say, ‘this is not thy promised seed,’ and could turn to barren Sarah, that laughing woman, and promise that in her old age a child would come forth, through whom the nations would be blest, making Abraham a father of the nations. That child would be Christ, not Isaac, and it would find its fulfillment not at Mount Sinai, but at Calvary.
  2. Those of Christ are considered the children of Abraham. All during the Abrahamic promise there was a mere promise, but no seed. When Christ came there was seed and there was heard this melody, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (4.27). The laughter of Sarah was turned to rejoicing and the desolation of Abraham’s house was turned to mirth. The gospel is the covenant of fulfillment, that promise fulfilled in Christ, of which are all made partakers in Christ. The Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of promise, the Mosaic covenant a mere interlude of the flesh’s folly, and the new covenant is the covenant of fulfillment. Just as the household of Isaac was different, and the promise realized when Isaac walked its hallways, so was the coming of Christ such a day of rejoicing. Yet let us not forget Moriah, and the day that the only seed was taken by the Father and put upon the altar, that the promised seed might perish and fall to the ground, thus fertilizing the dead ground. He arose and went forth to be the firstborn among many brethren and we friends are the children of the fulfillment of Abraham’s promise, those called Israel.

    Just as Isaac gave birth to Jacob, and Jacob twelve tribes, so has Christ, by the Spirit, being poured out at Pentecost, given birth to the church. The church is the place where we see the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. He has innumerable seed, he is the father of many nations, and his seed, that promised seed, is the one by whom all have come forth. And he came forth not from the labors of the flesh, but from Jerusalem from above, which is free and we my friends, are his seed. Christ is our covenant, he is our Lord and king, and he is the fulfillment and end to all the days of old that anticipated his coming. We look for his return but know that he has gone to prepare our abode and we here have union with him. Let us then be glad to know that God, our God, has covenanted with us in Christ, making a new and better covenant, which was his design and plan all along. His promise was not Ishmael, that old covenant, it was Isaac, Christ, our covenant. Thus we might call our covenant laughter, because we marvel at a God that can bring life to a dead promise, who can raise up seed from the very stones themselves, who calls those things which are, which were not. We join with the laughter of heaven and cling to our Christ, knowing that we are children of God, liberty is our charge, and bondage and her son are cast out.

Thus by way of summation we reaffirm this thesis: The Holy Scriptures attest to three specific types of biblical covenants, that being the covenant of promise, the covenant of law, and the covenant of grace, properly deemed the covenant made with Abraham, the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and the new covenant. These covenants are distinct in occurrence and in substance. They are to be separate in our understanding, our religion, and practice. Thus we turn then to reaffirm this doctrine, A substantial and defining knowledge of the three biblical covenants of note is paramount to proper Christian association and conduct. And we impress it upon our hearts and minds with this application:

  1. By way of admonition we affirm the charge of the apostle, Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. In our theology we can have no place for a miss apprehension of the proper place and nature of the biblical covenants. Whether it be covenant theology or dispensational theology, both are culpable in deluding our liberty. We must join with the apostle and call for a reformation in our theology, a new revision of that which many are under the yoke of in our day. We must cry out to those under the bondage and berating of Ishmael, cast out the bondwoman and her son, be not bound by that old covenant, its law, or its administration, in your theology, in your eschatology, or in your religion. It is time to relearn our covenant theology and put away the delusions that have served a past day.
  2. By way of examination we affirm the charge of the apostle, stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is our first principal duty to guard our liberty in Christ. It is incumbent upon us first to examine our own practice, our own hearts, and consciences, and be certain that our religion is not a legal religion, a flesh dominated religion, or a religion of delusion. We have Christ, we have the promise fulfilled, we have the reality of our heritage today, our covenant is in full view, let us then labor to guard ourselves from the many that would rob us of our freedom. Whether it be in our practice, in our theology, or in our expression of our love for Christ, let us not be turned, but let us stand, and having stood, let us stand.
  3. By way of exhortation I call each of you to take up the prayer of the apostle, and as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (6.16). Let us pray for Christ’s church, for the people of our covenant, for the true Israel of God, that peace would be upon us, and mercy, and that they would walk according to this rule. Let us cry out to heaven for a true revival of religion in our day, when the affections of God’s covenant people would be set afresh on Christ. Let us cry out for a new effusion of God’s Spirit, for a heightening of our religious affections, and that we would see in our day a mighty reformation of the church. And let us then proclaim with Paul, Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

By way of final summation then I present this: A new covenant view of redemptive history sees the Adamic administration as rudimentary and merely declaratory. It views the Abrahamic promise as a mere promissory covenant. It sees the Mosaic covenant and its law as a mere parenthesis, and that it is no more. Its sees the new covenant as the realm, the rule, and the administration of the church, in which Christ is our king, our Lord, our lawgiver, our high priest, or brother, and our Savior. May God grant us all nothing more or less than Christ. Amen.

 

eMail Kevin Hartley
Return to Kevin's Sermon Index
Return to Index of New Covenant Theology Articles and Sermons
Go to the Sound of Grace Home Page

Copyright 2001 Kevin Hartley