Systematic Theology – Covenant

The Covenant and Election

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: 14-22

Genre: Speech

Track: 14 of 22

Dictation Name: 14 The Covenant and Election

Location/Venue:

Year:

Our subject in this session will be The Covenant And Election. The Covenant and Election and our scripture is Deuteronomy 7:1-11. Deuteronomy 7:1-11.

“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.”

In one of our previous meetings we saw that the doctrine of the covenant was to some degree basic to political order in Christendom generation after generation until a dramatic change beginning with the French Revolution. Previously despite various strains all the countries of Christendom knew that they were in covenant with God. This country when it was established required an oath of office the oath being a witness to the covenant and the fact that anyone taking the oath had to abide by the covenant law. But the doctrine that replaced it as we discussed at some length previously was the concept of the social contract. Now in a social contract both parties determine the contract whereas in the covenant of grace God gives the law by His grace and by His grace chooses the other party. So that we as the covenant people have no say so, the covenant is given, we are chosen. The law is dictated by God. In a social contract both parties have an input into the making of the law. Both parties choose whether or not they will be a party to the contract. Both parties then have the right to cancel the contract. There is thus in the concept of the social contract an equality which is implicit and in time it leads to equalitarianism. Because in the modern world man sees civil government as a social contract revolution becomes a sovereign right of the parties to the contract. Both say at the onset I choose and later they say I reject. Now it is true that political theorists say today that the social contract is exploited but they only mean Rousseau’s theory and the theory of others of his era as to the origins in early history of the social contract.

But basically the concept of a social contract, government as a contract between peoples which they are free to choose or to break, is still very much with us. But the covenant gives man no such option. It is an everlasting covenant. It is a blood covenant which cannot be broken, anyone who tries to break a covenant is punished with death. So that there is only reprobation for any who break God’s covenant. This is why the whole of mankind in Adam is under the death sentence and this is why all those peoples who are part of the covenant of Christ and who reject it are doubly reprobate and it is why judgment begins as scripture tells us at the house of God. Only God can say I choose. God lays down the terms and He lays down the duties. He makes the law. In Deuteronomy 7 we are told therefore that the covenant people cannot marry outside of the covenant, they must be at war with the enemies of God, they are to go forth and conquer the land for the Lord. A covenant does two things to the people, first it marks their election by sovereign grace and second it declares them holy, set apart, having a judicial holiness and then the requirement of them is personal holiness. Love Him and keep His commandments, verse nine says. Know therefore that the Lord thy God He is God, the faithful God which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations. Our Lord echoes this verse, He tells His disciples if ye love me keep my commandments, John 14:15.

He said this at the last supper when they were brought in to His covenant as the remnant who is to be the new people, the new covenant race. Failure to keep His commandments means to hate God and to incur His judgments, the tenth verse tells us. Thus we have the parallelism here, love means obedience to His commandments, obedience means blessings, hate means the disobedience to his commandments and disobedience means curses. And we are clearly told in scripture that we are to read history in terms of these facts. Election thus is by the grace of God, He chooses us. Our election is for service to God, it is God centered, it is not for our goals, for our purposes. There is a famous saying by Sigmund Freud, it was a remark of his to a French princess of the Napoleonic line, he said concerning marriage: that’s a good solution to the sex problem. Now, if you view marriage in Freud’s terms as set forth in that statement then there’s not much hope for your marriage and it is precisely because that kind of purely physical outlook has so prevailed in the modern world that modern marriage is in trouble, very serious trouble. Now if we view God and our Christian faith in like terms we’re in trouble. If we say just as marriage is a good solution to the sex problem and religion is a good solution and Christ is a good solution to the problem of life and fire insurance then we are in trouble because we have not understood the meaning of the faith. Election is for the service and to the glory of God. God elects us and He saves us, hence we must surrender ourselves and as we have seen our children and our possessions to Him.

It is interesting by the way that Colossians 2:10-12 describes baptism as the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision of Christ. The covenant is a legal fact and it is also a personal fact. Now let’s review just for a moment the relationship there between the two which we dealt with previously. You remember, we saw that in the modern worldview a legal fact is an impersonal and abstract fact so that we in our modern outlook separate things that are personal like love and things that are legal and we feel they are a world apart. And a part of the philosophy of the sexual revolution was that you didn’t need marriage to prove your love, in fact you proved your love better apart from marriage. But in terms of scripture because God who gives the law is a personal law and the law represents a personal fact love and the law are not to be separated. You will recall I used an illustration when I went into this at somewhat greater length at a previous meeting that if we truly love someone we want marriage, a legal fact, because it is God’s requirement and what god’s law requires of us is the most personal kind of life and so God in His law sets forth requirements for our marital life, our family life, and those laws give us the most thorough going personal and loving kind of life. Well, the covenant is a legal fact but it is also a personal fact. It establishes our personal relationship with God and we have that personal relationship as we, His elect people, are faithful to His word. If you love me, keep my commandments. The law and love are brought together by Christ, they are brought together by God as He speaks through Moses.

This is why the violators of God’s law are subject to more than legal penalties. What does God say again and again including in our text? That His wrath blazes out against those who break His law, it is a personal fact. We offend a person God when we break His law. Now if I break a speed limit I don’t assume that the state of California is going to get upset or hurt or angry with me. It’s a highly impersonal thing. If I get a ticket and I only get a ticket if a policeman sees me, but God always sees me, I pay a fine and that’s it. It’s totally impersonal fact as all of man’s laws are. But it’s not so with God, just as when children sin or husband and wife sin against one another there is not only a law broken but a person hurt, a person who becomes angry because in God’s world love and law cannot be separated. Now the covenant in Adam and in Noah was made with all men without exception. All men are therefore covenant breakers. In fact we read in Ezekiel 16:48 following that God sees Jerusalem and Sodom as sisters. In Matthew 10:!5 God says through our Lord Jesus Christ that Sodom and Gomorrah will be judged together with the cities of Judea, they are alike covenant breakers. The new covenant in Jesus Christ is not a new covenant in that it is different from the others, it is different essentially in that the broken covenant is reestablished with a new people. With the Babylonian one element of the covenant people were cut off and a remnant was taken and brought back and the covenant continued with them. Twelve disciples were chosen out of Israel to be the remnant through whom the covenant was to continue so it was a new people but the same God with the some everlasting covenant.

As one scholar has said concerning Ezekiel 16:62 and I quote:

“My covenant, a covenant that on God’s part was never broken has on it the name Yahweh which in the text guarantees his irrevocable decisions. It is an everlasting covenant. God made it, and He cannot change and He is always faithful. Some are cast out, others are grafted in, the covenant continues.”

Election is in terms of the covenant. We cannot discuss predestination and election apart from the doctrine of the covenant. When the doctrine of election is weakened so too is the doctrine of the covenant and the result is free willing thinking, the sovereignty of man, a radical individualism and a weakening of the fact of sovereign grace. Similarly to discuss predestination and election in isolation from the covenant puts all the emphasis on the individual salvation or reprobation and not on the covenant purposes of God. The covenant embraces more than our salvation, it begins with that, but our Lord said seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and so the basic thrust of the covenant is the kingdom of God and election is in terms of our calling to serve Him. Thus the covenant doctrine requires that we hold to the doctrine of election because the covenant is all of grace, sovereign grace, and hence we must always think of predestination in terms of God’s covenant. Are there any questions now?

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Yes, democracy is an outgrowth of Rousseau’s social contract thinking. In the modern world however, everything whether it calls itself a democracy, a republic, a monarchy, a socialist state or what have you, or a fascist state, it is all social contract thinking and comes out of Rousseau. Unhappily this kind of thinking has gone into the church too indirectly so people think of the church as a kind of social contract rather than the covenant of God.

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Yes. You take it or you leave it, you make the choice, that’s the way it is. This is why some years ago when I was still in the pastorate I finally came to the conclusion that with people who came to the church and showed an interest in the faith I would instruct them in all that was necessary with my visitation and with classes concerning the fundamentals of the faith, do everything possible to bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ but I would not ask them to join the church. They had to feel that the Holy Spirit required it of them or they didn’t know what it was all about, that it wasn’t an option on their part but a calling. Yes?

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Yes, the question is how do you distinguish between the covenant and the kingdom of God. The covenant embraces perhaps more than the kingdom does because the covenant lays down the laws for the kingdom; the kingdom is established because God in His grace condescends to use man to establish His kingdom on earth. So the covenant is the prior fact and the kingdom of God is the manifestation of the light of the covenant in history.

The covenant governs our marriage, for example, and all the old forms of marriage used to say I do vow and covenant before God and these witnesses and in one area after another the fact of the covenant was set forth because the covenant had priority, you could say yes, marriage is within the kingdom, true, but it’s the covenant that governs the life of the kingdom and all the constituent parts and constituents.

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Well…

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] God calls his book the Old and the New Covenant or Testament and it used to be in the older editions of the bible it would say the Old or New Covenant or Testament. So God gives that priority, you see, the kingdom of God is definitely to be the focus of our lives but it’s a part of God’s covenant provision for man. It’s the community in which the rule of God prevails.

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Exactly. The covenant is the prior fact and when you understand that the covenant is a treaty of law which is of grace then you don’t have a conflict, then you don’t say I have to choose between law and grace, as they’re saying, and we choose grace. And then you see you don’t have an individualistic perspective with regard to the faith so that the kingdom is nothing.

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] Yes I’m not sure I understand your question but I think I do in that many people feel that the kingdom is there and it’s a take it or leave it thing and they choose it and they say here it is I claim it when it is a given, given by God not a choice by man. Now, man has a duty under God to work to further the kingdom, to be a kingdom man, a dominion man, to extend the scope of God’s kingdom over Ihis life and every sphere where He has any jurisdiction. Any other questions or comments? Yes?

[Question Unintelligible]

[Rushdoony] He was. I’m not sure I can answer that question because I’ve never read him very closely from that perspective, I would be tempted to say and this is just a guess that Spurgeon was probably sounder on that than most people in his day because there was very extensive old testament emphasis in Spurgeon. So that he would have been somewhat aware of it. He was aware however living in an age which was emphasizing individualism to the enth degree so it was not a time where there was much covenantal thinking even among those who prided themselves on being covenantally oriented. You see before the French Revolution could take place men had to have departed for some time from covenantal thinking and drifted into social contract thinking. And the net result was that most Christians took an individualistic outlook. Now I would say Spurgeon was less guilty of that than ninety nine out of a hundred leaders of his day.

In fact he was very good at attacking some of this rampant individualism and the pride that it represented. I, one of my choicest comments of the entire century comes from Spurgeon when he spoke of a lot of church members being like his neighbor’s pigs all grunt and no bacon [laughter]. Well if there are no further comments or questions let us bow our heads now in prayer.

Lord dismiss now with Thy blessing, give traveling mercies to all on their homeward way, a blessed night’s rest and joy in Thee day by day. And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you guide and protect you, this night and always, Amen.