Covenant Reformed News – Volume IV, Issue 17
[print-me]
The Covenant With Adam
There is only one passage of Scripture that speaks explicitly of a covenant with Adam: Hosea 6:7. The word there means either “man” or “Adam,” for they are the same word in Hebrew. However the verse is translated, it speaks of a covenant with Adam, referring either to a covenant that Adam transgressed personally or that mankind transgressed in him.
This covenant with Adam was not a separate covenant but the first revelation of the one, everlasting covenant of grace. If the covenant is everlasting, there can be only one covenant.
This first revelation shows what the covenant is. In it God reveals that He is the Friend of His people and that He lives with them in blessed fellowship. In that same revelation God also makes known man’s calling in the covenant—the calling to live in thankful (not meritorious) obedience.
That this is a revelation of the one covenant is clear from Scripture’s teaching that we are reconciled to God after Adam transgressed. The word reconciliation is a covenant term. It implies a previous relationship that has been damaged, yet not completely destroyed. Reconciliation can be spoken of only where the former relationship has not been entirely ruined.
If this were not so, one would have to speak of God as being frustrated and forced to change. His first covenant and purpose would have been utterly ruined, and He would be compelled to begin again with a new covenant.
But how can the covenant with Adam be a covenant of grace? God’s relationship with Adam was not established because of who Adam was or because he had earned it. It rested on no condition in him, nor on any work performed by him; it was entirely unconditional, grounded solely in God’s sovereign will and good pleasure. Besides, what could Adam ever do to merit anything from God, when he owed his very existence to Him?
But how can the covenant with Adam be a covenant of grace? God’s relationship with Adam was not established because of who Adam was or because he had earned it. It rested on no condition in Adam, nor on any work performed by him, but was entirely unconditional, grounded solely in God’s sovereign will and good pleasure. Besides, what could he ever do to deserve anything from God, when he owed his very existence to Him?
It was grace, too, that maintained this covenant relationship and ensured that it would not be destroyed by Adam’s fall. As soon as Adam fell into sin, God came to him and put enmity between the devil and the woman, thus renewing the covenant relationship of friendship between Himself and His people. They had chosen the friendship of the devil, but God, who had chosen them to be His own, would not allow them to continue as friends of Satan.
God’s covenant relationship with His people is always and only of grace. There is no other basis. Rev. Ron Hanko
Love and Hate
“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:36-37).
The question which one of our readers has asked reads as follows: “Christ teaches that members of our own family may be our enemies, yet we are still commanded to love them. However, He also says that we must ‘hate’ father and mother (cf. Luke 14:26), which surely means our love for Him must be above them (Matt. 10:37)? If ‘hate’ in this context means ‘to love less,’ how can the same word ‘hate’ in Romans 9 (where God says He ‘hated Esau’) be understood differently, as something stronger than simply ‘loving less’?”
The question of God’s love and hatred is not only a perplexing one for many people, but the question of our calling to love and hate is also puzzling and the object of much scrutiny and discussion. We have talked about this matter before in other connections. So far as I recall, we have not discussed it in connection with family ties.
It is however, obvious from the question that the questioner wants to know whether the word “hate” in Scripture can ever be used in the sense of “love less.” And if it can be used as meaning “to love less,” in connection with family relationships (where some members are believers and others are not), why cannot it mean “to love less” when Scripture speaks of God’s hatred of Esau and of the reprobate?
That is a question worth discussing. It is well first of all to consider that when the terms “love” and “hatred” are applied to God in Scripture, they are always absolute and used in their full and proper sense, not in a weakened or comparative way.
God hates the wicked with a great hatred. This means that God is very displeased with their sin, is determined to punish them in His just judgment and drives them from Him into everlasting hell. His hatred, however, is sovereign and eternal. He hated Esau before Esau had done good or bad (cf. Rom. 9:11-13).
God’s love for His people is absolute as well. He loves them with a great love in Jesus Christ. It is His will to bless them, make them everlastingly happy, and take them into fellowship with Himself as His own bride. That love too is eternal and sovereign, not in any way based on works. “While we were yet sinners” God loved us and sent Christ to die for us (Rom. 5:8).
While it is true that we are called to be like God in our manifestations of love and hate, it ought to be obvious to everyone that we cannot love and hate as God does. We are creatures; He is the Creator. We are dependent; He is sovereign. We are of this world and part of changing time; He is eternal and unchangeable. We imitate God indeed, but only in a creaturely way. If we remember this difference between us and God, we will be saved from a lot of difficult problems.
The love of God for His people manifests itself in three ways: 1) a desire to save them, 2) doing that which is necessary for their salvation, and 3) actually saving them by bringing them into His own fellowship. This same love we are to show towards our neighbour, remembering that our neighbour may at times be a member of our own family.
God knows those who are His; we do not know who are His people. Yet the love we are to show is essentially the same: 1) a desire for our neighbour’s salvation, and 2) doing what is necessary for that end—bringing him or her the truth of Scripture, calling him or her to repent and applying to him or her the commands of the gospel.
God’s love is sovereign and saving; ours is not. God’s love always accomplishes its purpose in actual salvation; ours does not. Because of this difference, we cannot bring a sinner into fellowship ourselves. If God is pleased to use our testimony to save our neighbour or a member of our family, then we receive them into our fellowship and enjoy the blessedness of the communion of saints.
If, however, our testimony—given in love—is not used by God according to His purpose to save, then full and true fellowship is not possible. When this concerns members of our own family, the situation becomes difficult. A believing wife must, according to Scripture, remain with her unbelieving husband, and a believing husband with his unbelieving wife—if at all possible. Yet their fellowship is limited to earthly relations and cannot be the fellowship of Christ in which both share.
Believing parents may keep an unbelieving child in the home as long as possible, in the hope that God will grant repentance. But when the child reaches adulthood and refuses to walk in the ways of the Lord, there may come a time when the child must leave the home. In any case, the fellowship between believing parents and an unbelieving child remains limited to earthly ties and cannot be the deeper and more blessed fellowship that exists between believers, especially within the family.
One further remark may be added.
When we show the love of God in us by seeking the salvation of our neighbour, even a member of our family, God uses our efforts to accomplish His purpose. Sometimes, as noted, that purpose is to bring to salvation (I Pet. 3:1-2; James 5:20). But if our neighbour is not among God’s elect, our efforts will not result in salvation. The more the word of God is brought, the more such a one becomes hardened in opposition. As that opposition increases, fellowship becomes impossible, and even further witness may be cut off, as sin closes the door to any continued expression of love.
In all things, God’s purpose is accomplished. When this touches the family, it is especially difficult—beyond description. Yet the child of God finds peace in God’s eternal purpose. In light of this, we love Christ above father or mother, sister or brother, son or daughter, or anyone else. With family members there is fellowship when they love the Lord; when they do not, that fellowship ultimately ceases. The family of God, in which we are brothers and sisters and God is our Father, is the great family to which we belong and in which we shall dwell eternally. Prof. Herman Hanko
Should We Practice Footwashing?
Our question for this issue of the News concerns foot-washing: “Should we wash one another’s feet before the Lord’s Supper, as Jesus did with His disciples? Some churches practise this.”
The question is whether foot-washing is a permanent ordinance, instituted by Christ to be observed in the New Testament church. We do not believe that it is.
Those practices that are permanent institutions in the New Testament church—those commanded and required as part of its official life and worship—have certain marks: 1) they are expressly commanded by Christ, and 2) they are confirmed in the teaching or example of the apostles. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper meet both criteria; foot-washing meets neither.
First, Jesus Himself calls what He did on the night of the last Supper an “example” (John 13:15). It is just that. Nor does He say, “Do that which I have done to you,” but, “Do as I have done to you.” He makes plain that He is not instituting the literal washing of feet, but calling us to follow His example in humble service to one another (Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3-8).
Secondly, nothing in the teaching or practice of the apostles shows that foot-washing was a permanent ordinance in the church. I Timothy 5:10 does not prove otherwise. There foot-washing appears not as an official church practice, but as a personal act of charity required of widows “taken into the number” (9). It is listed alongside such things as bringing up children, showing hospitality to strangers and relieving the afflicted.
We would have no objection to washing another Christian’s feet as a private act of humility and service, but we do not believe Christ commands even that. We should remember that foot-washing was an ordinary act of hospitality and love (Luke 7:44; I Tim. 5:10), especially necessary in a hot, dry climate where people travelled on foot. In our own context, the act itself would largely lose its significance. As one commentator has said, “Ritualizing such an act of love absolutely destroys its meaning.”
There is also evidence in the passage that Jesus is not commanding foot-washing specifically, but all acts of charity, hospitality and love. In John 13:17 He speaks not of “this,” that is, foot-washing, but of “these things,” which most naturally refers to the whole range of humble service Christians are to render one to another.
We should remember, too, that foot-washing was the lowest of services, ordinarily performed by a slave (I Sam. 25:41). What Jesus did, therefore, stands as a powerful example of how we are to “count others better than ourselves” (Phil. 2:3) and serve one another in true humility. Rev. Ron Hanko