This is our third article interacting with the recent book, It Pleased the Lord to Make a Covenant of Grace, by Earl Blackburn. After his introduction to terms and parties (ch. 1), and his brief treatment of the covenant of works (ch. 2), his third chapter aims at giving an interpretation of 2LBCF 7.
Blackburn begins briefly stating that it is not likely we disagree on paragraph 1 (p. 19). Next, he considers what it means that God “made” a covenant of grace and the timing of it. He says that “A plain, untwisted, and unimposed reading of the Confession gives a straightforward and simple answer: It did please the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace after the first Adam, the federal head of the Covenant of Works, brought himself and all of mankind under the curse of the law (‘by his fall’). Contrary to 1689 Federalist thought, it was not after the accomplished work of the last Adam” (p. 20, emphasis original). He says, it “was commenced and actuated immediately after Adam’s transgression” (p. 20).
For paragraph 3, he points out that the covenant referred to at the beginning of the paragraph was the covenant of grace mentioned in paragraph 2. He claims that some argue “the covenant God made with Adam after the Fall (along with that at Sinai) is not so much an authentic bona fide covenant, but a typological covenant” (p. 21). Blackburn asks, “Does this mean that even the Abrahamic Covenant was typological?” He charges 1689 Federalism (and “some of our Reformed brethren”) with making too much of typology, and he even calls typology “dangerous.”
After making some claims about typology and its dangers, he asks, “What is meant by the phrase in Chapter 7, ‘and afterwards by further steps’?” (p. 23). “What does this phrase mean,” Blackburn asks, “if it does not denote a series of actual (versus typological) covenants, from Adam onward…? I would like to see an uncomplicated, plain-talk biblical, and confessional explanation.” This question is quickly followed with another. What do “the framers of our Confession [mean] by ‘was completed in the New Testament? Notice,” he tells us, “the framers did not say that the Covenant of Grace was started or inaugurated in the New Testament, but ‘was completed” (p. 23).
While Blackburn makes some comments on the issue of typology, he largely refers his readers to his appendix on the subject. We will not address that here since the main purpose of the chapter is an interpretation of 2LBCF 7.
Response
The difficulties in responding to this chapter are because there are so many issues introduced, each of which could receive a lengthy response. First, Blackburn assumes his “plain reading” includes everything he already believes. He spends a lot of time talking about the timing of the covenant of grace. However, the Confession itself only mentions the fact that it was subsequent to the fall, or, to be still more precise, to man in his state of fallenness. Paragraph 2, in other words, says nothing determinative about the precise timing of the covenant of grace other than the fact that it is after the fall.
Second, and tied to the first, he claims that the covenant of grace was first entered into with Adam. He takes the Confession’s phrase “first of all to Adam” and makes that mean “the Covenant of Grace was commenced and actuated immediately after Adam’s transgression” (p. 20). Is that what the Confession says though?
Blackburn spends some time making sure his reader knows that “This covenant” at the beginning of paragraph 3 refers to the covenant of grace in paragraph 2. We do not deny that. But, again, look closely at the text. It says that “This covenant is revealed in the gospel, first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the Woman, and afterwards by farther steps,” etc. The covenant of grace is revealed in the various promises stretching back to the protoevangelium. He “interpret[s] our Confession through the lens” of his predetermined conclusions (to borrow his own accusation [p. 21, n. 16]). When he asks for an uncomplicated explanation, then, our response is to simply say that we mean what the words say: The covenant of grace is revealed in the gospel; this gospel revelation is progressive; this progressive revelation of the covenant of grace comes to its completion in the new covenant. This does not actually say that the covenant of grace was ‘ratified’ in the old covenant, even if we affirm that the grace of the covenant was applied to those who believed in its coming by faith in the promises. In fact, it is a broad statement that allows for a limited variety of views.
Finally, we should respond to one more issue in particular: Blackburn’s claim that we do not affirm earlier covenants were real (or “actual” or “bona fide”). This is simply untrue. We do not deny that these covenants are real. God really made a covenant with Abraham, with Israel, with David. To say otherwise is false. Nor do we say that the “Sinai [covenant was] primarily a typological covenant” (p. 21). In its immediate context, it is a “bona fide” and proper covenant for the land of Canaan/Israel. When he says “What does this phrase [‘by farther steps’] mean if it does not denote a series of actual (versus typological) covenants, from Adam onward (e.g., Noahic, Abrahamic…,” (p. 23), he creates a dichotomy. We are not saying that these are not “actual” covenants. Nor do we deny that they are covenants with typological signification. We believe that there are real covenants established, with real parties, responsibilities, and consequences. We also say that these covenants are, in the context of redemptive history as a whole, related to each other by pointing forward to the fulfillment of all promises in Christ and the new covenant. In other words, they have typological significance.
In our next article, we respond to Blackburn’s lengthiest chapter: his “Objections to Republicationism.”