Basic HTML Version
272
single covenant is meant, and the terms “external” and “internal” simply serve to stress the fact
that all are not in the covenant in exactly the same way. Some are in it merely by an external
confession, to the enjoyment of external privileges, and others by a hearty acceptance of it, to
the enjoyment of the blessings of salvation. Likewise, he wishes it to be clearly understood that,
when he says that some are in the covenant externally and conditionally, he does not mean to
assert that they are not really in the covenant, but only that they cannot obtain the promised
blessings of the covenant, except by complying with the condition of the covenant. This
representation, too, undoubtedly contains an element of truth, but in Koelman it is linked up in
such a way with the notion of an external and an internal covenant, that he comes dangerously
near to the error of accepting two covenants, especially when he claims that during the New
Testament dispensation God incorporates whole nations and kingdoms in the covenant.
D. THE COVENANT AS A PURELY LEGAL RELATIONSHIP AND AS A COMMUNION OF LIFE.
Reformed theologians, such as Kuyper, Bavinck, and Honig, speak of two sides of the covenant,
the one external and the other internal. Dr. Vos uses terms that are more specific, when he
distinguishes between the covenant as a purely legal relationship and the covenant as a
communion of life. There is clearly a legal and a moral side to the covenant. The covenant may
be regarded as an agreement between two parties, with mutual conditions and stipulations,
and therefore as something in the legal sphere. The covenant in that sense may exist even
when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the condition to which it points and for
which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant,
since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere everything is
considered and regulated in a purely objective way. The determining factor in that sphere is
simply the relation which has been established, and not the attitude which one assumes to that
relation. The relation exists independently of one’s inclination or disinclination, one’s likes and
dislikes, in connection with it. It would seem to be in the light of this distinction that the
question should be answered, Who are in the covenant of grace? If the question is asked with
the legal relationship, and that only, in mind, and really amounts to the query, Who are in duty
bound to live in the covenant, and of whom may it be expected that they will do this? —the
answer is, believers and their children. But if the question is asked with a view to the covenant
as a communion of life, and assumes the quite different form, In whom does this legal
relationship issue in a living communion with Christ? — the answer can only be, only in the
regenerate, who are endowed with the principle of faith, that is, in the elect.
This distinction is warranted by Scripture. It is hardly necessary to cite passages proving that the
covenant is an objective compact in the legal sphere, for it is perfectly evident that we have
such a compact wherever two parties agree as in the presence of God to perform certain things