Protestant Reformed Theological Journal

Volume 40   April 2007   Number 2

Index:

Editor’s Notes

 

The Covenant with Noah: Common Grace or Cosmic Grace? – Ronald L. Cammenga

 

The Relationship of God’s Kingdom to His Covenant – Russell J. Dykstra

 

Breaking the Everlasting Covenant of Grace – Barrett L. Gritters

 

A Review Article: Herman Bavinck: Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3: “Sin and Salvation in Christ” – David J. Engelsma

Book Reviews:

 

·    Genesis, by J. G. Vos.  Pittsburgh, PA:  Crown and Covenant Publications, 2006.  Pp. vii + 544.  $20.00 (paper).  ISBN-13: 978-1-884527-20-3.  [Reviewed by Ronald L. Cammenga.]

·    Baptism in the Reformed Tradition:  An Historical and Practical Theology, by John W. Riggs.  Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.  Pp. ix + 187.  $24.95 (hardcover).  ISBN: 0-664-21966-7.  [Reviewed by Ronald L. Cammenga.]

·    Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul, by Cornelis P. Venema.  Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2006.  Pp. xi + 92.  $6.00 (paper).  ISBN-13: 970-0-85151-927-2.  [Reviewed by Ronald L. Cammenga.]

·    Arminian Theology:  Myths and Realities, by Roger E. Olson.  Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2006.  Pp. 250.  $25.00 (cloth).  [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

·     Divided by a Common Heritage:  The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America at the Beginning of the New Millennium, by Corwin Smidt, Donald Luidens, James Penning, and Roger Nemeth.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2006.  Pp. xiv + 226.  $24.00 (paper).  [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

·    Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible:  The Social and Literary Context, by David Instone-Brewer.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2002.  Pp. xi + 355.  $26 (paper).  [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

·    God of Promise:  Introducing Covenant Theology, by Michael Horton.  Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2006.  Pp. 204.  $19.99 (cloth).  [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

·     The Virtual Church and How to Avoid It:  The Crisis of De-formation and the Need for Re-formation in the 21st Century Church, by Peter C. Glover.  N.p:  xulon Press, 2004.  Pp. 297.  Paper.  [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

·    Trinity and Covenant:  God As Holy Family, by David J. Engelsma.  Jenison, Michigan:  Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2006, Pp. x-148.  $19.95 (cloth).  [Reviewed by Kenneth Koole.]

·    Covenant Theology:  The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition, by Peter Golding. Scotland:  Christian Focus Publications, 2004.  240 pp.  Price: 10.99 (UK).  Softco

 

 

     This issue of the Journal is the second of two issues devoted to the doctrine of God’s covenant of grace.  In this issue Prof. Russell Dykstra treats the vital relationship between the covenant and the kingdom.  Prof. Barrett Gritters takes up the matter of covenant breaking and covenant breakers.  And the undersigned considers God’s covenant with Noah, evaluating the view that the Noahic covenant was a covenant of common grace.  (Rev. Angus Stewart’s survey and analysis of John Calvin’s covenant theology, which he started in the previous issue, will be continued in our November 2007 issue.)

     The doctrine of God’s covenant is not just one doctrine among many other doctrines of equal importance in Scripture.  But the doctrine of the covenant is the doctrine of Scripture, the central doctrine around which all the other doctrines are arranged, out of which they arise, and on which they are dependent.  The Reformed faith has recognized this.  For this reason, the doctrine of the covenant, already from the time of the Reformation, has been the distinguishing doctrine of Reformed theology.  More than any other doctrine, the doctrine of the covenant has defined the Reformed faith. 

     At the same time, from the very beginning the doctrine of the covenant has been controversial.  It has been a matter of controversy with those outside the Reformed faith who denied it and attacked it.  But it has also been a matter of controversy among the Reformed themselves.  The various controversies over the covenant within the Reformed churches have been highlighted in the articles appearing in this issue and in the preceding issue of the Journal.

     Our prayer is that our readership will be profited by this issue of the Journal.  It is our hope that you will be informed regarding old and new attacks on the biblical truth of the covenant.  It is our added hope that you will be strengthened in your resolve to maintain the truth of the covenant, for the glory of the God of the covenant.

R.L.C.

The Covenant with Noah:  Common Grace or Cosmic Grace?

Ronald L. Cammenga

 

 

Introduction

     In the progressive revelation of the truth concerning the covenant, the history of God’s establishment of the covenant with Noah is of special significance.  The establishment of the covenant with Noah is not the first establishment of the covenant by God.  The covenant was first established when God spoke the “Mother Promise” in Genesis 3:15.  God’s putting enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent implied the establishment of friendship between Himself and the seed of the woman.  That is the covenant, the relationship of love expressed in friendship and fellowship between Himself and His people in Christ—the seed of the woman.  The very first revelation of the promise of the gospel is couched in covenantal language and proclaims the salvation that is the covenant.

     Although God’s establishment of the covenant with Noah is not the first establishment of the covenant, there are a number of “firsts” connected with the Noahic covenant, as recorded in Genesis 6:18 and Genesis 9:8-17.  For one thing, this is the first time that the term “covenant” (tyriB]) appears on the pages of Holy Scripture.  In Genesis 6:18, after announcing the destruction of all flesh and commanding Noah to build the ark, God’s word to Noah was, “But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.”  In distinction from the wicked world that would perish under God’s just judgment, God had established His covenant with Noah.  That God had established His covenant with Noah was both the explanation for and the assurance to Noah that he and his family would not perish in the impending deluge.  The covenant and their place in the covenant was the assurance from the God of their salvation, as the apostle Peter expressly states in I Peter 3:20.  God’s establishment of His covenant with Noah prior to the Flood was reaffirmed by God after Noah and his family left the ark and set foot in the new world.  That reaffirmation of the covenant is recorded in Genesis 9:8-17. 

     Besides the first express mention of the covenant, the history of Noah is also significant for the first use of the covenant formula, “I will establish my covenant.”1   From the very first use of the term “covenant,” the language used by God for the covenant’s establishment was not “Let us establish a covenant,” as though the covenant were a pact or mutual agreement between God and man.  But the divine formula is “I will establish my covenant.”  Accompanying the first use of the term “covenant” is the insistence by God that the covenant is established sovereignly and unilaterally. 

     A third “first” worth pointing out is that it is in connection with the revelation of God’s covenant with Noah that for the first time the word “grace” (@je) appears on the pages of Holy Scripture.  Genesis 6:8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”  Striking it is that the first use of the term “covenant” occurs in conjunction with the first use of the term “grace.”  Now clearly God’s covenant promise to our first parents was a covenant and promise of grace.  Of that they were keenly aware.  Fallen mankind did not deserve deliverance from the serpent, whose friendship they had chosen over against God.  God’s grace was typified in His killing of the animals and clothing Adam and Eve with their skins.  But it is in connection with God’s establishment of the covenant with Noah that Scripture for the first time makes explicit mention of God’s grace.  As the history of the Flood makes abundantly clear, God’s covenant and the salvation of that covenant are a gracious covenant and a gracious salvation.

     Tragically, the great significance of God’s covenant with Noah is often slighted.  This is due to the fact that the Noahic covenant is generally construed as a covenant of common grace.  About this covenant of common grace it is said that it is a covenant that includes all men, elect and reprobate alike—as is the nature of common grace.  The blessings of this covenant are only temporal blessings, not any spiritual blessings of salvation.  This covenant is not a covenant established in the blood of the Mediator and Head of the covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ, but with Noah as the head and father of the human race.  The blessings of this covenant being only temporal blessings, the nature of this covenant is that it is only temporary, a covenant that concerns only life in this present world.  Although this covenant stands in a certain relationship to the covenant of grace, making possible, its proponents say, the realization of the covenant of grace, it is essentially different from the covenant of grace and must be distinguished from the covenant of grace. 

     Such a construal of the covenant with Noah, we are convinced, is not only to be criticized for its superficial exegesis of the biblical data recorded in Genesis, but it is to be criticized also for being seriously in error, in fact squarely at odds with the Bible’s own teaching as to the nature of God’s covenant with Noah.  At the same time, the view that makes the Noahic covenant a covenant of common grace misses the rich significance of the revelation of the covenant that is associated with God’s establishment of the covenant with Noah.

 

A Covenant of Common Grace

     Abraham Kuyper, the father of common grace, was responsible for introducing into the Dutch Reformed churches the view that the Noahic covenant was a covenant of common grace.  In his massive three-volume work on common grace, De Gemeene Gratie, Kuyper developed and defended this view.2   The first one hundred pages or so of the very first volume are devoted to an extensive treatment of God’s covenant with Noah.  Significantly, this is the point at which Kuyper begins his treatment of common grace.  So decisive does he view God’s establishment of the covenant with Noah for the teaching of common grace that this is his starting point. 

 

       The firm historical starting point for the dogma of common grace lies in the establishment of the covenant of God with Noah after the Flood.  To this significant and decisive event, in the last instance, not enough attention is paid.  One too quickly passes on to Abraham and the patriarchs, and consequently the weighty significance of the Noahic covenant at first is pushed into the background and then is almost forgotten….  We must therefore begin by again placing the great significance of the Noahic covenant in its clear light.3 

 

     For Kuyper, the great significance of the Noahic covenant was that it was a covenant of common grace.  As a covenant of common grace, God’s covenant with Noah, Kuyper insisted, was not particular, not with the elect in Christ alone.  Rather, it was a covenant that included all men, elect and reprobate alike.  None were excluded from this covenant and the blessings—for covenant always entails blessing—that were enjoyed by virtue of this covenant.  The grace of this covenant is common to all.  Kuyper entitles an entire section of his treatment of the covenant with Noah “Het Noachietisch Verbond niet particulier,” that is, “The Noahic Covenant Not Particular.”4   In God’s covenant with Noah “… we do not stand before a covenant of particular grace, but before a covenant of common grace….”5  

 

       The grace that is shown here is not particular, restricted only to the elect and leading to eternal life, but common, extending to all that have breath, and leading to a human existence on this earth, under this dispensation.6 

 

       Its content lies exclusively in the sphere of natural life, has to do with temporal and not eternal blessings, and applies to unbelievers as well as to those who fear God….7 

 

     In keeping with his insistence that the covenant with Noah was a covenant of common grace that included all men, Kuyper devalued the spiritual significance of the Noahic covenant.  The covenant with Noah was not, taught Kuyper, on a par with the covenant of grace.  It was certainly not to be regarded as a historical manifestation of the covenant of grace, but was in fact a completely separate covenant. 

 

       Had men understood that this Noahic covenant is not saving, but aims equally at all the children of men, yea, even at all living creatures, they would not make the mistake of placing this covenant on a line with the other covenants; but it is mentioned apart, as a covenant of an entirely different sort….8 

 

In distinction from the covenant with Abraham, which concerned the spiritual blessings of salvation, the covenant with Noah concerned only earthly, natural benefits.9   It was not a covenant the grace of which was for time and eternity, but whose grace was only for this present earthly life.  Thus, Kuyper sharply distinguished the covenant with Noah from the covenant with Abraham, which covenant includes Christ and the saving benefits that are found in Christ.10   The covenant of common grace in certain respects served the covenant of grace in Christ, but it was not to be identified with that covenant.  They are not one and the same covenant, but two distinct covenants.

     Although Abraham Kuyper is to be credited with the teaching that the covenant with Noah was a covenant of common grace, a number of the main elements of his teaching regarding the Noahic covenant were by his time already present in the Dutch Reformed tradition.  In certain key respects, Kuyper carried on the views of the Noahic covenant that others before him had articulated.  This is true in particularly two respects.  First, already before Kuyper there were those who expressed the view that the covenant with Noah was a covenant in some sense with all men, not with the elect alone.  And second, there were those who reduced the covenant with Noah to a covenant of nature, temporal in its benefits, and distinct from God’s covenant of grace in Christ.

     Wilhelmus à Brakel, one of the leading theologians of the movement in the Dutch Reformed churches of the seventeenth century known as the Nadere Reformatie, is representative of this strand in the tradition.  In volume 4 of his The Christian’s Reasonable Service, he deals with the question whether the rainbow is to be regarded as a sacrament of the covenant of grace. 

 

       Question:  Is the rainbow a sacrament of the covenant of grace?

       Answer:  One might be inclined to think that this is so, since it is called the token of the covenant (cf. Gen. 9:12-13).  We answer negatively for the following reasons:

       (1) It is a token of the covenant between God and the earth, all men (both good and evil), and all living animals which had been in the ark with Noah (cf. Gen. 9:9-17).  The covenant of grace is only a covenant between God and believers.

       (2) By means of the rainbow, the Lord did not seal any spiritual benefits in Christ, but temporal blessings only; this blessing being that there would be no more flood upon the earth.  The covenant of grace, however, contains spiritual promises.11 

 

Clearly, à Brakel viewed the Noahic covenant as distinct from the covenant of grace.  It was, in his judgment, a covenant with all men, not with the elect alone, and it was a covenant that “did not seal any spiritual benefits in Christ, but temporal blessings only.”  This was Kuyper’s starting point and the teaching that he developed more fully in his view of the Noahic covenant as a covenant of common grace.

     A large portion of the Dutch Reformed church, both in the Netherlands and in the United States, as well as American Presbyterianism, has been influenced by Abraham Kuyper’s teaching concerning the covenant with Noah.  In fact, there appears to be an almost unquestioning acceptance of Kuyper’s explanation of the Noahic covenant as a covenant of common grace among the majority of conservative Reformed and Presbyterian theologians since Kuyper’s day. 

     Herman Bavinck, Kuyper’s contemporary and co-laborer, shared his basic assessment of God’s covenant with Noah.  Bavinck takes up the matter of the covenant with Noah in the third volume of his Reformed Dogmatics.  Although he has a decided preference for the designation of this covenant as “The Covenant with Nature,” it is plain that Bavinck is in basic agreement with Kuyper as to the nature of this covenant.

 

       With Noah, therefore, a new period begins.  The grace that manifested itself immediately after the fall now exerted itself more forcefully in the restraint of evil.  God made a formal covenant with all his creatures.  This covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:1-17), though it is rooted in God’s grace and is most intimately bound up with the actual covenant of grace because it sustains and prepares for it, is not identical with it.  It is rather a ‘covenant of longsuffering’ made by God with all humans and even with all creatures.  It limits the curse on the earth; it checks nature and curbs its destructive power; the awesome violence of water is reined in; a regular alternation of seasons is introduced.  The whole of the irrational world of nature is subjected to ordinances that are anchored in God’s covenant.  And the rainbow is set in the clouds as a sign and pledge (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:9-17).12 

    

Bavinck goes on to state that

 

       The grace of God, accordingly [that is, by virtue of God’s covenant with Noah, R.C.], manifests itself much more forcefully after the flood than before.  To it is due the existence and life of the human race; the expansion and development of peoples; states and societies, which gradually came into existence; religion and morality, which were not completely lost even among the most degenerate peoples; and the arts and sciences, which achieved a high level of development.  Everything that after the fall is still good even in sinful humans in all areas of life, the whole structure of civil justice, is the fruit of God’s common grace….  Humankind was led by this grace and under the dispensation of this covenant of nature before Christ and prepared for his coming.13 

 

Bavinck goes so far as to say that by virtue of the Noahic covenant of nature, “One can indeed speak in a positive sense of mankind’s education by God.  A susceptibility for salvation was maintained and the need for it aroused.”14 

     It is plain that Bavinck is in agreement with Kuyper regarding the main features of the covenant with Noah.  The points of agreement would be especially the following:

1. It is a covenant that includes all men, not just the elect, but also the reprobate wicked.

2. It is a covenant the blessings of which are limited to this life.

3. It is a covenant distinct from God’s covenant of grace with the elect in Christ.

     The Christian Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof carried on the Kuyperian view of the covenant with Noah, although he gives some indication of an uneasiness with certain implications of Kuyper’s view.

 

       The covenant with Noah is evidently of a very general nature:  God promises that He will not again destroy all flesh by the waters of a flood, and that the regular succession of seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night will continue.  The forces of nature are bridled, the powers of evil are put under greater restraint, and man is protected against the violence of both man and beast.  It is a covenant conferring only natural blessings, and is therefore often called the covenant of nature or of common grace.  There is no objection to this terminology, provided it does not convey the impression that this covenant is dissociated altogether from the covenant of grace.  Though the two differ, they are also most intimately connected.15 

 

     G. H. Kersten, the spiritual father of the Netherlands Reformed denomination, also spoke of the covenant with Noah as a covenant of common grace.

 

       … the ordinances of heaven are placed by God as by way of a covenant, and also that in the Noachian Covenant God has sworn to the whole world, “Neither shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:9).  Here we have no promise of grace unto salvation but only of common grace; here nothing is said of election as it is in the Covenant of Grace because the grace promised here concerns all men, indeed, even the cattle and the grass of the field and the ordinances of heaven.  Hence we are not considering these covenants; they do not concern man’s eternal state, and thus differ from the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.16 

 

So distinct did he view God’s covenant with Noah from God’s covenant of grace in Christ that Kersten did not even include it in his consideration of the historical manifestations of the covenant of grace.

     Also in American Presbyterian circles it is common to view the covenant with Noah as a covenant of common grace.  Although not using that designation, Wayne Grudem may be regarded as representative.

 

       The covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (Gen. 9:8-17) was not a covenant that promised all the blessings of eternal life or spiritual fellowship with God, but simply one in which God promised all mankind and the animal creation that the earth would no longer be destroyed by a flood.  In this sense the covenant with Noah, although it certainly does depend on God’s grace or unmerited favor, appears to be quite different in the parties involved (God and all mankind, not just the redeemed), the condition named (no faith or obedience is required of man), and the blessing that is promised (that the earth will not be destroyed again by flood, certainly a different promise from that of eternal life).  The sign of the covenant (the rainbow) is also different in that it requires no action or voluntary participation on man’s part.17 

 

Other Voices

     Although the explanation of the Noahic covenant as a covenant of common grace became the settled opinion in most Reformed and Presbyterian churches, there were contrary voices raised.  Kuyper himself acknowledged that his view of the covenant with Noah was not in agreement with a number of earlier Reformed theologians.  He mentions specifically Pareus, Perkins, Mastricht, and Rivet.18   These earlier Reformed theologians viewed the covenant with Noah as a manifestation of the one covenant of grace established by God with the elect in Christ.  Accordingly, the promises of the Noahic covenant were not merely promises that concerned man’s earthly life, but in the end were promises that concerned eternal life and the blessings of salvation. 

     In the modern era, a number of Reformed theologians have demurred from the prevailing opinion that the covenant with Noah was a covenant of common grace.  If not throwing the conception overboard entirely, they have at least taken exception to various aspects of the covenant of common grace view.

     One such theologian is J. G. Vos.  Vos treats God’s covenant with Noah in his commentary on Genesis.  To begin with, Vos insists that the covenant throughout Scripture, as in Genesis 6:18 and Genesis 9:8-17, concerns God’s spiritual salvation of the people with whom He establishes the covenant, not merely temporal blessings in this life.

 

       God’s covenant is a religious bond between God and His people, by which they receive life and blessing.  To be in covenant with God is the opposite of perishing.  God established His covenant with Noah and Noah’s family; therefore, they did not perish in the waters of the Flood.  Those who are in a covenant bond with God are saved unto eternal life; those without this covenant relationship to God will perish eternally in hell.19 

 

Vos goes on to insist upon the unilateral character of the covenant with Noah, repudiating the description of the covenant with Noah, as well as God’s covenant generally, as a pact or agreement.

 

       We should note that God took the initiative in establishing this covenant relationship.  This is very strongly emphasized in the text we are considering:  “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you.” This covenant was not established by God and Noah jointly.  It was established by God acting alone.  Noah was the recipient and beneficiary of this covenant, but he was not in any sense the originator or author of it.  It is important to emphasize this because we live in a day when it is common to debase God and exalt man in religious thinking.  Many people today talk of “making” a covenant with God, when in reality, of course, they can do no such thing.  The idea commonly met with that God’s covenant is a kind of “contract” or “bargain” or “agreement” between God and man is based on the notion that God and man can be equal contracting parties to such an arrangement.  The Bible, on the other hand, represents God as the establisher of the covenant and man as the recipient and beneficiary of it.  God and Noah did not mutually discuss this matter and come to agreement on having a covenant with certain provisions; God imposed the covenant, and Noah accepted it.20 

 

The above quotation makes clear that Vos viewed the covenant established with Noah as a manifestation of the one covenant of grace.  It also makes clear that Vos viewed the covenant with Noah as instructive for the truth of God’s covenant generally.  Important implications for the doctrine of the covenant more broadly considered are to be derived from the biblical account of God’s establishing the covenant with Noah.  One of the most significant implications that Vos draws out is the unilateral character of the covenant.

     More recently this same implication from the account of the establishment of the Noahic covenant has been pointed out by Gerard Van Groningen. 

 

       Yahweh declares himself to be the unilateral source of the covenant to which he did not add any kind of condition.  The verb mçqîm (hiphil participle of qûm, to cause to stand or cause to continue firmly) stresses Yahweh’s sovereign intention and monergistic action.  It is Yahweh’s covenant with his saved (from the flood) image-bearers and animated life placed under their dominion; they become the blessed participants and benefactors.21 

 

     One of the most outspoken critics of the Kuyperian view of the covenant with Noah was the Protestant Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema.  Hoeksema subjected every aspect of the traditional Reformed doctrine of the covenant to the searching criticism of Scripture and the Reformed creeds.  One aspect of the tradition that he evaluated and corrected was the accepted view of the covenant with Noah as a covenant of common grace.  The rather lengthy quotation that follows is taken from Hoeksema’s work Believers and Their Seed.  Originally written in 1927, fairly early in Hoeksema’s ministerial career, the quotation demonstrates his rejection of Kuyper’s view of the covenant with Noah, even though Kuyper is not mentioned by name.

 

          However, this truth, that God establishes His covenant in the line of continued generations, is more clearly expressed after the deluge.  We have already made it plain that in the covenant with Noah we confront essentially no other covenant than the one covenant of grace which was already announced in general terms in Paradise, which is presently established with Abraham and his seed, and which is maintained in Christ.  Noah does not enter into the ark as the representative of the whole world as it is outside of Christ, but as head of the visible church.  The church is saved in the ark; the world perishes in the flood.  Presently that church comes forth again from the ark; and with that church the Lord God establishes His covenant.  The fact that in this connection the covenant of God is revealed as embracing the whole creation does not change matters and is easily understandable in the light of the history of the flood.  A covenant of friendship with the wicked world outside of Christ God, the Holy and Righteous One, certainly could not establish.  The covenant is essentially always the same.  For this reason, also here Scripture does not speak of “a covenant,” but of “my covenant.”  That is:  My one covenant, which is always the same, and which I establish with My people in Christ Jesus.  And when, therefore, the Lord establishes that covenant with Noah, He says:  “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you” (Gen. 9:9).  Also here, therefore, you have the same idea.  When God establishes His covenant in the world, then He does that with believers and their seed.22 

 

 

Objections to the View that the Covenant with Noah

was a Covenant of Common Grace

     A number of weighty objections must be lodged against the view that God’s covenant with Noah was a covenant of common grace, altogether distinct both in its recipients and promises from God’s covenant of grace in Jesus Christ.23 

     First, the account in Genesis makes plain that it is God alone who establishes the covenant.  The covenant is no bargain or mutual agreement entered into by God and Noah.  Repeatedly the language that is used is language that underscores divine sovereignty in the establishment of the covenant.  Consistently the language that is used is “I will establish my covenant” (Gen. 6:18; Gen. 9:9, 11, 12, and 16).  This is unilateral and unconditional covenant language.  God alone establishes the covenant.  The covenant that He establishes is His (“my”) covenant.  It was not God and Noah who established the covenant, so that the covenant that was established was “their” covenant.  God established the covenant, and therefore the covenant is His covenant.  The very form of the Hebrew verb that is used throughout the passage, and for that matter is used throughout the Old Testament, for the establishment of the covenant emphasizes God’s sovereignty in establishing the covenant.  The Hebrew verb is the Hiphil of  !Wq, which in the Hiphil (the causative verbal pattern) means to cause to stand, to establish.  The very form of the verb underscores the truth that God and God alone establishes the covenant.  The covenant exists because He causes it to stand.

     Second, the fact that the Genesis account speaks throughout of “my covenant” (Gen. 6:18; Gen. 9:9, 11, 15) and “the covenant” (Gen. 9:12, 16, 17), along with the fact that “covenant” is throughout singular, implies that the covenant established with Noah is a manifestation of the one covenant of God.  This is the language used throughout Scripture to refer to the covenant of grace.  That this language is used in regard to God’s covenant with Noah indicates that the Noahic covenant, unique to be sure in certain features, was nevertheless as to its essential character of one piece with the covenant of grace established by God with His people in Christ.

     Third, what confirms the view that the Noahic covenant is only a manifestation of the one covenant of grace is the fact that the covenant with Noah is referred to as a covenant “for perpetual generations” (Gen. 9:12) and “the everlasting covenant” (Gen. 9:16).  Although the covenant with Noah does certainly concern this earth and the life of God’s covenant people in the midst of this earth as they are gathered and as the covenant comes to manifestation in the history of the world, nevertheless the covenant with Noah is not essentially a temporal covenant whose benefits are limited to this earth.  It is rather an everlasting covenant.  Not only does that emphasize that God establishes and realizes the covenant, inasmuch as God alone is eternal, but that also underscores the truth that the blessings of the Noahic covenant are not just temporal blessings attached to earthly life.  They are in reality blessings that originate in eternity past and extend to eternity future.  They are nothing less, therefore, than the blessings of salvation, the spiritual salvation of God in Jesus Christ.

     A fourth objection to the common grace view of the covenant with Noah is that it does not do justice to the original establishment of that covenant as recorded in Genesis 6:18.  The proponents of common grace focus on the establishment of the covenant as it is recorded in Genesis 9:8-17, the account of the establishment of the covenant with Noah after the Flood.  But what they fail to take into due consideration is the fact that the first establishment of God’s covenant with Noah is recorded in Genesis 6:18 before the Flood.  God’s covenant with Noah after the Flood may not be divorced from His covenant established with Noah before the Flood.  These, clearly, are not two different covenants, but one and the same covenant.  The covenant was first established by God with Noah before the Flood, and then confirmed by God after the Flood.  What Genesis 6:18 makes clear is that the Noahic covenant is not a merely temporal covenant with purely earthly benefits.  Genesis 6:18 is the explanation as to why Noah and his family will not perish in the Flood.  Under the just judgment of God, the wicked world of Noah’s day perished in the deluge, a just judgment of God that ended in the everlasting damnation of those ungodly.  In contrast to the wicked world exposed to the awful judgment of God stood Noah and his family.  What marked the difference between that perishing world, on the one hand, and Noah and his family, on the other hand?  The difference was the grace of God.  Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8).  According to that grace, God established His covenant with Noah.  Clearly, the significance of God’s covenant with Noah, therefore, cannot be reduced to that which is purely temporal and earthly—not, at least, if full justice is done to the light that Genesis 6:18 sheds on God’s confirmation of the covenant in Genesis 9:8-17. 

     What strengthens the objection against the common grace understanding of the Noahic covenant, in the fifth place, is the subsequent reference to this history and covenant in Scripture.  In three passages in the Old Testament, reference is made to God’s covenant with Noah:  Isaiah 54:9, 10; Jeremiah 33:20-22; and Hosea 2:18.  In all three instances the covenant with Noah is compared to God’s covenant with His elect people in Christ.  In the Isaiah 54 passage the Noahic covenant is compared to “the covenant of my peace”; in the Jeremiah passage the Noahic covenant is compared to God’s covenant with David, which covenant is ultimately with Christ, the great son of David, and all who are in Jesus Christ; in the Hosea passage the Noahic covenant is compared to God’s covenant with Israel, according to which He will break the bow and the sword of their enemies and make Israel to lie down safely.  That the Noahic covenant can be compared to God’s covenant of grace in these passages of the Old Testament is possible, in the final analysis, only if the Noahic covenant itself is a manifestation of the covenant of grace. 

     In the sixth place, it simply is not true that the Noahic covenant is established by God with all men, elect and reprobate alike.  This is at best to misread Genesis 9 and at worst deliberately to corrupt the teaching of the passage.  Noah does not stand as the head of the whole human race in Genesis 9, although unquestionably the whole human race derives from him.  But Noah emerges from the ark as the head of the church, the church as it was manifested in that day, the church that had been saved through the watery destruction of the Flood.  He is the prophet, priest, and king of the people of God who have been delivered, not merely from, but by the Flood.  With the head and representative of the church, who stands therefore as a type of Christ Himself, God establishes His covenant.  The whole history of Genesis 6-9 proclaims the truth, proclaims it loudly and clearly, that not all men are included in God’s covenant.  The covenant, the grace and salvation of the covenant, are particular, for some only. 

 

The Cosmic Covenant

     Not a covenant of common grace is the covenant God established with Noah.  Rather, it is a cosmic covenant.  Not common grace, but cosmic grace is the grace of God’s covenant.  This belongs to the unique positive truth that is revealed in the Noahic covenant. 

     The covenant with Noah emphasizes a number of outstanding features of God’s covenant.  It emphasizes that the covenant is a covenant of grace, for Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, Gen. 6:8.  It emphasizes that the grace of the covenant is particular grace—i.e., for the elect alone.  It seems preposterous, in light of the history of the Flood, to claim that God’s covenant includes more than just the elect in Christ.  The covenant with Noah demonstrates that in the covenant it is God’s intention to deal with families.  God’s covenant included Noah and Noah’s family.  The children of believers in their generations are included in the covenant.  God’s covenant with Noah also teaches the truth, the painful truth, but the truth that underscores God’s sovereignty in the covenant, that not all the children of believers are included in God’s covenant.  There are Hams and there are Canaans.  This aspect of the covenant would be highlighted especially in the later history of Esau and Jacob.  However, the history of God’s covenant with Noah already bears this out. 

     But what especially the Noahic covenant teaches is that the scope of God’s covenant is cosmic.  The whole vast creation, in its organic unity, and under the headship of man (Noah), is taken up into God’s covenant and is made to stand in a covenant relationship to God.  The entire creation, destroyed in God’s just judgment, also in His grace partakes of the blessedness and salvation of His covenant in the elect, of whom Christ is the Head.  This is the most notable feature of the revelation of God’s covenant with Noah.  Writes Homer Hoeksema, “not the idea that the covenant with Noah is a covenant of common grace, but the beautiful and comforting truth that God’s one and only covenant of grace is cosmic—this is the truth that is emphasized at the beginning of this period of Old Testament history.”24   God’s covenant takes up into its scope the whole creation, the entire animate creation, including not only man but the animals:  “every living creature” (Gen. 9:10, 12, 15, 16) and “all flesh” (Gen. 9:11, 15, 16, 17).  Indeed, even the inanimate creation, that aspect of the creation that consists of the mountains and valleys, the plants and trees, is taken up into the covenant:  “the earth” (Gen. 9:11, 13, 16, 17).  In explanation of the cosmic character of the covenant as established with Noah, Hoeksema writes:

 

          But as we have already pointed out, that covenant is cosmic in its embrace.  It is cosmic not only in the sense that it embraces the new creation, so that the redeemed saints cannot exist without that new creation, though it is true that man and the whole creation belong together, but that is also true now.  Man cannot exist without the earth.  And God’s covenant cannot be established and maintained and realized without a stage on which this can take place.  On this fact falls the emphasis when God establishes his covenant with Noah and his seed.  God’s covenant people must have a place to dwell, to develop, to bring forth the covenant generations, and eventually to bring forth the great Seed.  Thus, for the sake of his covenant people God assures them continued existence, promises that there will be no more flood, promises seedtime and harvest, and lifts the curse from the ground.25 

 

     This is the particular significance of the covenant with Noah, that it teaches the cosmic character of God’s covenant.  The covenant takes up into its scope the entire creation—all with a view to the covenant people, the elect in Christ.  The grace of God’s covenant is cosmic grace. 

     That God’s covenant is cosmic in character was made plain by the ark.  Because God’s covenant is cosmic, Noah had to build the ark, an enterprise that took one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3).  Why the ark?  Why an ark of three stories, with approximate dimensions of 450 feet in length (one and a half football fields), 75 feet in width, and 45 feet in height (Gen. 6:14-16)?  Not merely for the salvation of eight people, Noah and his family.  But the ark served the salvation of Noah, his family, and the animals—animals of every kind.  Why?  Because God’s covenant is a cosmic covenant, a covenant that includes not just human beings, but the whole of His creation.

     That it is, God revealed in the special sign of the covenant that He created for the confirmation of the covenant with Noah, the sign of the rainbow.

 

The Rainbow as the Sign of God’s Cosmic Covenant

     Of the many “firsts” relating to God’s covenant that are taught in Genesis 6-9, there is also in this narrative the first mention of a sign or token of God’s covenant.  There will be other tokens or signs of God’s covenant in subsequent history, most notably circumcision.  But the first token of God’s covenant is mentioned in Genesis 9.  That token of God’s covenant is the rainbow.  That is what God says about the rainbow in Genesis 9:13:  “And I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.”  A token is a sign, something earthly and visible that represents and points to some spiritual truth.  The rainbow in the cloud is a sign of God’s covenant.  The spiritual truth and invisible reality that the rainbow points to is the covenant of God. 

     Imagine how amazed and entranced Noah and his family must have been when, on coming forth from their confinement in the ark, they saw that first rainbow with its spectacular colors arching across the sky.  They had never seen anything like it before; there had never before been a rainbow.  Prior to the Flood it had never rained.  That rainbow, said God to Noah and to the members of his family, is a sign of my covenant with you and with all flesh.  When you see the rainbow, you must think of my covenant with you, with your children, and with all the earth.  As Henry Morris comments, “Just as the fossil-bearing rocks of the earth’s crust would continually remind us that God once destroyed the earth with a Flood, so the rainbow after the rain would remind us that He will never do so again.”26 

     The rainbow is produced by the refraction and dispersion of the rays of the sun as the sun’s rays pass through droplets of rainwater.  The rainbow appears after the storm, against the dark background of the black storm clouds.  After the rumbling thunder and the flashing lightning have passed into the distance, the rainbow spreads its beauty across the sky.  As the light of the sun passes through the falling rain of the receding storm, the white light of the sun is refracted into all the different colors of the spectrum, from red to violet.

     The white light of the sun is refracted into seven distinct colors.  Seven is the number of the covenant, the number of God (three) and the number of man (four) combined.  The one white beam of sunlight symbolizes the covenant God, who is Light and in whom there is no darkness at all.  He is the God of all glory and exalted majesty.  That light is displayed and refracted in the seven colors of the rainbow that symbolize the manifold grace of God in the covenant toward His covenant people.

     Every important truth regarding the covenant of God is symbolized in the rainbow! 

     The rainbow is a token of the fact that in the covenant God saves and God promises to save His people.  The rainbow speaks of salvation.  God has just saved Noah and his family, saved them from certain death and awful destruction in the waters of the Flood.  He has saved them from death and destruction under the wrath of God.  The message of the rainbow is that God will save His people.  He will save us now, and He will save us eternally.

     The rainbow is a testimony that salvation is all of God.  Who creates the rainbow in the sky?  Do men climb up on tall ladders and paint pretty colors across the sky?  Of course not, you say; that is ridiculous.  God makes the rainbow, and in making a rainbow He does what no man can do.  “I do set my bow in the cloud” (Gen. 9:13).  Just so, it is God and God alone who establishes and maintains His covenant.  There is no place in the covenant for man’s cooperation in the establishment of the covenant or conditions that man must fulfill for the establishment and maintenance of the covenant.  The covenant is sovereignly and unilaterally established, as it is sovereignly and unilaterally maintained.  To that truth the rainbow bears clear testimony.

     The rainbow is a sign of particular grace.  Those who beheld that first rainbow were Noah and his family.  They alone of all the millions that had lived on the earth at that time saw that first rainbow.  That underscores the truth that God’s covenant and the grace of God’s covenant are particular.  Not all men are included in the covenant, but some only.  Those some only, in the final analysis, are God’s elect.  That, in the end, was the difference between Noah and the millions who perished in the waters of the Flood.  Noah had been elected by God.  One cannot separate election and covenant, the grace of God in election from the grace of God in the covenant. 

     And his family—that too.  God’s covenant was with Noah and his family, his sons and their wives with him and his own wife.  That it was not only the individual Noah, but Noah and his family who beheld that first rainbow testifies to the truth that the grace of God in the covenant is a grace shown to believers and to their children.  That is the very nature of God’s covenant.  Just as God’s covenant within Himself includes a Father and a Son, so God’s covenant with believers includes those believers and their sons and daughters.

     The rainbow also points to the grace of God in the covenant as antithetical grace.  For God sets His bow in the cloud.  That cloud reminds us of God’s wrath breaking out in the destruction of the Flood.  But the rainbow reminds us that in wrath God remembers mercy.  It reminds us that the nature of God’s grace is always that it is antithetical.  That is the grace of God’s covenant.

     But especially does the rainbow point to the truth that God’s covenant is a cosmic covenant.  Rightly understood, God’s covenant is universal, embracing the entire creation.  That is especially the symbolism of the arc of the rainbow.  The rainbow spans the earth and reaches up to the heights of the heavens.  The whole creation is included in the covenant of God—“all flesh.”  The beautiful and comforting truth is that God’s covenant is cosmic.  God establishes and realizes His covenant with His elect people—to be sure!  But with them and with the whole creation in them and with which they are organically connected.  In Genesis 9, the creation is included in God’s covenant.  It is included for the sake of His covenant people.  This is why no flood will ever again destroy the earth.  This is why the curse on the ground is lifted.  It is for the sake of the covenant people and for the sake of God’s covenant and its development.

     For the sake of God’s covenant.  This is application that must be drawn from the history of Noah.  The Christian must press everything in the creation into the service of God’s covenant and into the service of the God of the covenant.  This is how God’s people must live in and make use of the creation.  They enjoy all things and make use of all things with a view to God’s covenant and for the sake of the covenant God.  This was man’s sin before the Flood!  It was not so much his violence and immorality.  It was that God was not in all his thoughts.  He lived in God’s world and made use of God’s creation for himself.  Everything stood in the service of man and the exaltation of man.  This is the desperate wickedness of man apart from God’s grace, covenant grace.  This will be the characteristic, too, of the antichristian world before the final judgment, of which the Flood was only a type.  The antichristian kingdom will center in man, will be the exaltation of man, everything in God’s creation put into the service of man and man’s ambitions.  But with God’s people, God’s covenant people, it is different.  The grace of the covenant makes the difference.  According to that grace, everything is for the sake of God’s covenant, for the glory of the covenant God.

     The rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant because in a very beautiful and powerful way the rainbow is a sign of Jesus Christ and the saving work of Jesus Christ.  Even the colors of the rainbow point to Christ’s saving work in the covenant and on behalf of the covenant people.  There are seven colors in the rainbow.  The colors of the rainbow are represented by the fictitious character ROY G. BIV:  red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.  Red—that is the first color, the overarching color on the top of the rainbow.  There is a reason for that.  And the reason is that the red of the rainbow points to and is a sign of the blood of Jesus Christ.  God’s covenant is established in the blood of the cross.  The covenant sign of baptism points to that, and so does the sign of the covenant in the rainbow. 

     Even the arc of the rainbow points to Jesus Christ.  The arc of the rainbow spans heaven and earth, and unites heaven and earth.  Just so, Christ came down from heaven to earth, was crucified, dead, buried, and is risen again into the heavenly heights.  In His saving work He has united heaven and earth, and lifted this earth up to the heights of heaven.  And He has done that by enduring the dark cloud of the storm of the judgment of God.  The rainbow is always the rainbow in the cloud.  That dark cloud descended on Calvary.  But out of that dark cloud, the rainbow of God’s love, God’s mercy, God’s grace to His covenant people.  In the rainbow we see Christ.  Noah saw Him, and so must we.

     That Noah saw Christ in the rainbow and in the covenant that God established with him is born out by the context.  For everything that is recorded concerning the establishment of the covenant in Genesis 9 stands connected to what is recorded at the very end of Genesis 8.  And what is recorded at the end of Genesis 8 is Noah’s building of that altar unto the Lord (literally, “Jehovah,” the covenant name of God), and sacrificing on that altar, which sacrifice “the Lord (Jehovah) smelled (as) a sweet savour” (Gen. 8:21).  That altar, its sacrifice, and the sweet savour in Jehovah’s nostrils represented Jesus Christ.  Everything in Genesis 9 arises out of and depends on that altar and on Jesus Christ.  The covenant is established in Jesus Christ.

     And thus, the rainbow was a sign for the confirmation of faith.  Signs, especially signs of the covenant, serve that purpose.  They are not only signs, but they are also seals.  So also the rainbow.  The rainbow was a sign for the confirmation of Noah’s faith.  Noah needed that confirmation.  Indeed, God had said that He would never again destroy the earth with a universal flood.  But would not every dark cloud threaten destruction again?  Would not doubts and fears arise in Noah’s mind due to the weakness of his faith?  For what purpose, then, would it be to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth?  Might it not all be in vain?  In the rainbow, God confirmed His word to Noah.  He would never again destroy the earth with a worldwide flood.  He would remember His covenant, and preserve and keep His covenant people in the midst of the world.

     We need that same confirmation of faith today.  Everything seems to be against God’s covenant!  We have God’s Word, of course, that He will establish, maintain, and preserve His covenant.  He has promised that not even the gates of hell will prevail against His church and covenant people.  But in His condescending mercy God has added to His Word, in order to confirm to us His covenant, a sign.  That sign is the rainbow.  Whenever you see the rainbow, be assured that God always remembers His covenant.  He remembered it in Noah’s day.  He remembers it today.  And He will remember it to the very end.

     Three other times Scripture makes reference to the rainbow, once in the Old Testament and twice in the New Testament.  In Ezekiel 1:28 the rainbow is seen surrounding the throne of God as He prepares for judgment.  The rainbow as always is associated with judgment.  The two references in the New Testament are in the Book of Revelation.  In Revelation 4:3 John saw, in vision, a rainbow “round about the throne” of the one who sat thereon.  And in Revelation 10:1 the Christ who pours out the vials of the wrath of almighty God upon the earth has a rainbow upon His head. 

     Never does He forget His covenant or His covenant people!

     Always He maintains His covenant!  To the very end!

     In order to bring that covenant to its perfection in the glory of the new heavens and the new earth!  

 

The Relationship of God’s Kingdom to His Covenant

    God’s covenant of grace and His kingdom of righteousness are prevalent biblical themes and significant theological concepts.  Kingdom is stressed in both Testaments.  First, the kingdom of Israel dominates the history in the Old Testament.  The New Testament testifies that Jesus came into the world the first time announcing the gospel of the kingdom, and that He will come the second time to destroy the kingdoms of this world and establish the kingdom of God.

     God’s covenant is likewise on the foreground all through the Old Testament in that God deals with His people—from Adam on—in covenant relationships.  In the New Testament, Jesus comes as Mediator of a better covenant—the theme of the epistle to the Hebrews.

     Both of these concepts are significant in the life and theology of the church today.  Much mission work is directed by a certain kingdom theology in which, it is asserted, the church is the instrument for building the kingdom—and all too often the emphasis is on the earthly and material.  Christian colleges establish as a goal that their students be motivated and trained to redeem culture and subdue all spheres of life to the rule of Christ, thus, so it is maintained, building His kingdom.

     Covenantal theology is also the subject of much debate today due to the heresies that are being introduced under the umbrella of a conditional covenant.

     Because of the fact that the kingdom is a chief topic of eschatology, it is much discussed and debated in connection with the various views of the millennium.  Many errors concerning the kingdom are promoted, and the errors of the premillennial dispensationalist also involve the covenant.

     As such, the purpose of this article is not to address any of these controversies directly.  Rather, the purpose is to discuss the relationship that exists between the kingdom of God and His covenant of grace.1 

     Both kingdom and covenant are works of God.  The kingdom belongs to God who builds it.  The covenant of grace is His—He determines and establishes it.  Both are related to the church of God.  Since the sovereign God eternally planned all events, people, and institutions, surely He determined a relationship between His kingdom and covenant, as well as the relationship of those to His church.

     Dr. Samuel Volbeda, after briefly discussing “the three fundamental relations which God’s people sustain to Him,” namely, covenant, church, and kingdom, describes “the interrelation binding these three several relations together” as follows:

 

They are after all three strands of one cord.  For all these relations alike bind us to God: we are members at once of His covenant, of His church, and His commonwealth.  And all the several children of God sustain every one of these three relations to God normally.2 

 

     That relationship noted by Volbeda is due to the fact that church, covenant, and kingdom are three views or aspects of the one work of God, the work of salvation in Jesus Christ. God saves His chosen people and makes them members of the body of Christ, citizens of Christ’s kingdom, and covenant children in Christ the Mediator.  This is essentially one work, resulting in and revealed as church, kingdom, and covenant.  This one work of God is so glorious that God determined these three realities to bring out the various facets of this salvation.

     In addition, the relationship among the three is reciprocal, though not equally so, as we hope to demonstrate.  These are interwoven realities.  In some ways each serves the other two.

     In order better to understand the beauty and order of God’s one work of salvation, there is value in seeking to understand the relationship between covenant and kingdom.  The relationship that this article intends to demonstrate is this:  While the covenant life is necessary for the kingdom, indeed is the life of the kingdom, the primary relationship is that the kingdom serves the covenant. God ordained the kingdom to serve as the structure for the people of God, establishing order with a view to the enjoyment of the life of the covenant.

     Before any demonstration of the relationship is established, it is necessary to delineate these two important concepts, kingdom and covenant.  The first to be examined is the kingdom.

 

The Heavenly and Spiritual Kingdom

     To grasp the biblical idea of the kingdom of God, we must  understand, before anything else, that the kingdom is heavenly and spiritual.  God’s kingdom is not earthly; it is not material.

     The promotion of an earthly kingdom of God has been a recurring problem throughout the entire new dispensation.  It was the common view of God’s kingdom among the Jews in Jesus’ day.  Jesus’ own disciples looked for an earthly kingdom.  The last question they asked Jesus just before He ascended into heaven was this:  “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).  They asked this in spite of the fact that in His public ministry Jesus had made it abundantly plain that His kingdom was not earthly, but heavenly.

     The gospel according to Matthew emphasizes that Christ’s kingdom is heavenly.  This gospel was particularly written for Jews who were wrongly expecting the restoration of an earthly kingdom of Israel.  In this gospel, the term “kingdom of heaven” is used over thirty times!

     Two incidents recorded in Luke 18 are very instructive as regards the spiritual nature of the kingdom.  In the first incident, Jesus rebuked His disciples for turning away mothers who had come to Jesus with their babies.  His rebuke included this instruction:  “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein” (Luke 18:16-17).  It is a strange requirement indeed that everyone who enters the kingdom must becomes as a little child—if one is expecting a glorious earthly kingdom.

     In that context we read that “a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (v. 18).  Eventually, Jesus’ word to the man was the command:  “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”  What follows is also enlightening.  “And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.  And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!  For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:22-15).  Jesus uses the expressions “have treasure in heaven” and “enter into the kingdom of God” to correspond to the words used by the ruler, “to inherit eternal life.”  Essentially they mean the same thing.

     Consider that if Jesus were interested in people building an earthly kingdom, He would hardly have told the rich ruler to sell all that he had.  He would have said rather: Get to work!  Use your wealth and power to promote and establish the kingdom here!

     Luke 17: 20-21 records an exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning the kingdom.  “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”  A kingdom coming with observation is one that grows, takes over regions, institutions, and peoples.  The kingdom of heaven is not like that.  It is within, inside.  The word the Spirit caused Luke to write for inside (ejnto;V) is the exact opposite of outside, as Jesus used it in Matthew 23:26:  “Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within (ejntoV) the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.”  The kingdom is inside a person, in the heart of the regenerated one. 

     Further, Jesus stated straightforwardly that His kingdom is not earthly in His answer to Pilate’s question, “Art thou the king of the Jews?”  Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).

     After Pentecost, Jesus’ disciples understood and taught the same.  Peter describes how this earth is surrounded by fire, waiting to be destroyed, and the very elements will melt.  But our hope is in the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, according to God’s promise (II Pet. 3:10-14).

     Paul wrote often of warfare, but it is a spiritual warfare, with spiritual armor that is of no avail in either building or defending an earthly kingdom (Eph. 6:11-18).

     Nonetheless, the plain teaching of Jesus and the rest of Scripture did not forestall repeated attempts to promote and even sometimes to establish an earthly kingdom.  Throughout the new dispensation there have been chiliasts, who looked for Jesus to return and establish a kingdom on earth for one thousand years.  The Radicals of the sixteenth century took over the city of Münster in 1534—proclaiming that they were setting up the Kingdom of God.

     The last one hundred twenty-five years witnessed the development of several theologies of eschatology that promote an earthly kingdom.  The premillennialists look for Christ to establish a kingdom, with His throne in Jerusalem.  They contend that, after He raptures the church off the earth, Christ will come to reign as the king of Israel, which nation will have dominion over all the nations.

     Various postmillenarian theories also promote an earthly kingdom.  Postmillennialists look for the coming of a golden age of Christianity in which all the earth will be dominated by the gospel.  This Christian kingdom will last, they maintain, until the antichrist arises (somehow) out of this Christian kingdom, and then Christ will come to destroy the antichrist and his kingdom.

     Akin to that is the earthly kingdom promoted in the “social gospel.”  This teaching was especially popular in the early 1900s, and though it waned in popularity with the tragedy of the world wars, it never truly died out.  Walter Rauschenbusch, a main proponent of the social gospel, insisted that the church existed only to build the kingdom—clearly, an earthly kingdom.

     Today, what is promoted as Reformed missions is also called kingdom work.  This work consists of improving society.  As noted, this has been the siren song of many Christian colleges—training their students to go out and Christianize the world.  All these movements are seeking a better world, a more just and compassionate society.  This reform, it is alleged, will reclaim the world for Christ and for the kingdom.

     All this contradicts Scripture, which (as was demonstrated above) clearly and emphatically teaches that God’s kingdom is not earthly but heavenly and spiritual.

     Concerning the biblical concept of kingdom, Scripture and Reformed theology make a clear distinction between the kingdom of grace and the whole creation as God’s kingdom, ruled by His sovereign power.  One distinct truth that the kingdom of God reveals is God’s absolute sovereignty.  Scripture testifies everywhere that God is King supreme over all that He has made.  Psalm 29 describes God’s rule over the whole of the creation, and explicitly states, “The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever” (v. 10).  In Psalm 10 the believer sings “The Lord is King for ever and ever” (v. 16).  Psalm 149 connects God’s kingship with His being the Creator—“Let Israel rejoice in him that made him:  let the children of Zion be joyful in their King” (v. 2).

     The confessions maintain the same truth of God’s sovereignty over all.  The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 9, expounding the confession “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,” teaches:  “That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence….”  In the next Lord’s Day the Catechism speaks of God’s providence as “the almighty and everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His hand, He upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures.”

     Similarly the Belgic Confession, Article 13 (Of Divine Providence) states, “We believe that the same God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them, or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment.”  The Helvetic Confession speaks the same language in Chapter 6 on Providence—“We believe that all things in heaven and on earth, and in all creatures, are preserved and governed by the providence of this wise, eternal and almighty God.”

     God appointed His Son Christ Jesus as King over all that God has made.  Just before His ascension into heaven, Christ announced to His disciples that all power (literally authority—ejxousiva) had been given Him in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).  This power is part of the reward from His Father.  Because Christ, in perfect obedience, humbled Himself to the depths of hell in order to redeem God’s elect, God exalted Jesus to the pinnacle of power and glory.  God gave Him a Name above all names (Phil. 2:6-11).  By His sovereign power, the triune God raised Jesus from the dead, and “set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet” (Eph. 1:20-22).  Jesus rules over the heathen with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9; Rev. 12:5; 19:15).  Nothing thwarts the will of the