Basic HTML Version
268
unfolding and completion of the covenant life, we may regard sanctification as a condition in
addition to faith. Both are conditions, however, within the covenant.
Reformed Churches have often objected to the use of the word “condition” in connection with
the covenant of grace. This was largely due to a reaction against Arminianism, which employed
the word “condition” in an un-Scriptural sense, and therefore to a failure to discriminate
properly.[Cf. Dick, Theol. Lect. XLVIII.] Bearing in mind what was said in the preceding, it would
seem to be perfectly proper to speak of a condition in connection with the covenant of grace,
for (1) the Bible clearly indicates that the entrance upon the covenant life is conditioned on
faith, John 3:16,36; Acts 8:37 (not found in some MSS.); Rom. 10:9; (2) Scripture often
threatens covenant children, but these threatenings apply exactly to those who ignore the
condition, that is, who refuse to walk in the way of the covenant; and (3) if there were no
condition, God only would be bound by the covenant, and there would be no “bond of the
covenant” for man (but cf. Ezek. 20:37); and thus the covenant of grace would lose its character
as a covenant, for there are two parts in all covenants.
g. The covenant may in a sense be called a testament. In view of the fact that a testament is an
absolute declaration and knows of no conditions, the question is raised whether it is proper at
all to apply the term “testament” to the covenant. There is but one passage in the New
Testament where it seems to be justifiable to render the word diatheke by “testament,”
namely, Heb. 9:16,17. There Christ is represented as the testator, in whose death the covenant
of grace, considered as a testament, becomes effective. There was a testamentary disposal of
the blessings of the covenant, and this came into force through the death of Christ. This is the
only passage in which the covenant is explicitly referred to as a testament. But the idea that
believers receive the spiritual blessings of the covenant in a testamentary way is implied in
several passages of Scripture, though the implied representation is slightly different from that
in Heb. 9:16,17. It is God rather than Christ who is testator. In both the Old and the New
Testament, but especially in the latter, believers are represented as children of God, legally by
adoption, and ethically by the new birth, John 1:12; Rom. 8:15,16; Gal. 4:4-6; I John 3:1-3,9.
Now the ideas of heirship and inheritance are naturally associated with that of sonship, and
therefore it is no wonder that they are frequently found in Scripture. Paul says: “And if children,
then heirs,” Rom. 8:17; cf. also Rom. 4:14; Gal. 3:29; 4:1,7; Tit. 3:7; Heb. 6:17; 11:7; Jas. 2:5. In
view of these passages there is no doubt that the covenant and the covenant blessings are
represented in Scripture as an inheritance. But this representation is again based on the idea of
a testament, with this difference, however, that the confirmation of the covenant does not
imply the death of the testator. Believers are heirs of God (who cannot die) and joint-heirs with
Christ, Rom. 8:17. It is perfectly evident that for the sinner the covenant has a testamentary
side and can be regarded as an inheritance; but now the question arises, whether it can also