Ant. But, sir, was this in every way the same covenant that was made with Abraham?

Evan. Surely I believe that reverend Bullinger spoke very truly when he said that God gave these people no other religion in nature, substance, and matter itself, differing from the laws of their fathers; though in some respects, he added to it many ceremonies and certain ordinances.

He did this to keep their minds in expectation of the coming of Christ whom he had promised to them; and to confirm them in looking for him, lest they grow faint. And just as the Lord by these ceremonies, as it were, led them by the hand to Christ, so he made them a promise of the land of Canaan, and outward prosperity in it, as a type of heaven and eternal happiness. So that the Lord dealt with them as with children in their infancy and under-age, leading them to heavenly and spiritual things by the help of earthly things, because they were but young and tender,1 and did not have that measure and abundance of the Spirit which he has bestowed on his people now under the gospel.

Ant. And, sir, do you think that these Israelites at this time saw Christ and salvation by him in these types and shadows?

Evan. Yes; there is no doubt that Moses and the rest of the believers among the Jews saw Christ in them, “For,” says Tyndale, “though all the sacrifices and ceremonies had a star-light of Christ, some of them had the light of broad day, a little before the sun-rising;” and they expressed him, along with the circumstances and virtue of his death, as plainly as if his passion had been acted on a scaffold — “so much so,” he says, “that I am fully persuaded, and cannot help but believe, that God had shown Moses the secrets of Christ, and the very manner of his death, beforehand.” And therefore, I do not doubt that they offered their sacrifices by faith in the Messiah, as the apostle testifies of Abel in Heb. 11.4. I say, there is no question that every spiritual believing Jew, when he brought his sacrifice to be offered, and according to the Lord’s command, laid his hands on it while it was still alive (Lev. 1.4), and acknowledged from his heart that he himself had deserved to die — but by the mercy of God he was saved,2 and his desert3 was laid upon the beast.4 And just as that beast was to die and be offered in sacrifice for him, so he believed that the Messiah would come and die for him, on whom he put his hands — that is, on whom he laid all his iniquities by the hand of faith.5

So that as Beza says on Job 1, “The sacrifices were holy mysteries to them, in which, as if in a mirror, they saw themselves to their own condemnation before God,6 and also beheld the mercy of God in the promised Messiah, who was to be exhibited in time.” “And therefore,” says Calvin in his Institutes, p. 239, “the sacrifices and satisfactory offerings were called Ashemoth, which properly signifies sin itself, to show that Jesus Christ was to come and perform a perfect expiation by giving his own soul to be an asham, that is, a satisfactory oblation.’’7

Therefore, you may assure yourself that just as Christ was always set before the fathers in the Old Testament, to whom they might direct their faith; and just as God never put them in hope of any grace or mercy, nor ever showed himself good to them without Christ;8 even so, the godly in the Old Testament knew Christ by whom they enjoyed these promises of God, and they were joined to him.9 Indeed, the promise of salvation never stood firm till it came to Christ.10 And there was their comfort in all their troubles and distresses, as it is said of Moses in Heb. 11.26, 27, “He endured as seeing him who is invisible,11 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked to the recompense of reward.”

And so, as Ignatius says, the prophets were Christ’s servants who, foreseeing him in spirit, both waited for him as their master, and looked for him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, “He shall come and save us.”

And so says Calvin, Institut. p. 207, “As often as the prophets speak of the blessedness of the faithful, the perfect image that they painted of it was such that it might force men’s minds out of the earth, and of necessity raise them up to consider the felicity of the life to come.” So we may assuredly conclude with Luther, that all the fathers, prophets, and holy kings were righteous, and saved by faith in Christ to come. So indeed, as Calvin says in his Institutes, p. 198, they “were all partakers of one salvation with us.”

The question has generated countless debates, yet I wonder whether the question itself assumes a framework that Scripture never gives us.

The more fundamental question is whether God has always intended to save sinners through one promised Christ.

Immediately after Adam’s fall, God promised the seed who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). That promise was renewed with Abraham, to whom God declared that all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3). Israel subsequently became the nation through which that promised seed would come. And then Paul identifies the seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16).

To be clear, Israel occupied an indispensable place in redemptive history because God was bringing Christ into the world through Israel, as well as bringing the Old Testament scriptures through them.

Edward Fisher understood this relationship and, explaining that the addition of the law at Sinai, he wrote that it was given “by way of subserviency and attendance, to better advance and make effectual the Covenant of Grace” (Part I, chap. 2, sec. 2.3, p. 63).

Basically, he was saying that the law was given to serve the promise.

Sinai exposed Israel’s inability to establish righteousness through obedience, while the sacrifices and ceremonies continually directed believing Israelites toward the promised Redeemer. Fisher consequently described the tabernacle, ark, and mercy seat as types of Christ (p. 67).

As Baptists, we distinguish between the covenant of grace promised throughout the Old Testament and its establishment in Christ’s blood. Nevertheless, the saving object of faith remained the same. Abraham was justified by faith, and every believing Israelite likewise received salvation through the promised Christ.

This also explains Paul’s distinction between physical descent and participation in the promise. “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). External membership among God’s covenant people never guaranteed saving union with Christ.

We are equally capable of confusing religious privilege with a saving possession. Church attendance, baptism, Scripture reading, and the Lord’s Supper can become occasions for self-righteousness when we begin treating them as grounds of acceptance before God, when their proper use directs our faith toward Christ.

Ultimately, calling this replacement theology is rather like accusing an oak tree of replacing the acorn. The promise has reached its appointed fulfillment.

God did not lose Israel and gain the church. He brought the promised Messiah through Israel, and in Christ the blessing promised to Abraham now extends to the nations.

The church does not replace Israel; rather, as Christ is the true and better Adam, He is also the true and better Israel. He is the suffering Servant that Isaiah prophesied about and succeeds where both Adam and Israel failed as covenant representatives, and brings all those who come to Him back to the Father.

Does the church replace Israel?

Maybe that is the wrong question.

In Episode 11 of Marrowcast, Jeffrey Perry and John Meeks trace Christ's promise from Adam to Abraham, through Israel and Sinai, and ultimately to its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

Did the law save Israel? Did Moses replace Abraham? Are Israel and the church two separate saving peoples? And what does any of this have to do with law, gospel, assurance, and the Christian life?

The answer takes us to one of the points of The Marrow of Modern Divinity:

The law isn’t replacing the promise. The law is serving the promise, and the entire story is moving toward Christ.

Subscribe and find more at Marrowcast.com.

Marrow Theology, Practically Applied.

In episode 10 of Marrowcast, Jeff and John wrestle with one of the most important questions in covenant theology: what is the relationship between the promise of grace and the giving of the law?

Paul insists in Galatians 3 that the law, given 430 years after the promise to Abraham, did not cancel or replace that promise. Sinai was not God abandoning grace and returning sinners to a covenant of works as the way of salvation. The law was added because of transgressions, exposing sin, shutting every mouth, and showing sinners their need for Christ.

Jeff and John also discuss why Christians still need the law. Freedom from the condemnation of the law does not mean freedom from God’s moral will.

In Christ, the believer no longer hears the law as the covenant of works saying, “Do this and live.” The order has been reversed by grace: live, and do this.

Marrow Theology, Practically Applied.

Listen, share the episode, and subscribe to Marrowcast wherever you listen to podcasts.

The order of God’s dealings with Abraham and Israel helps us understand how this happens.

God promised Abraham blessing through his seed long before the law was delivered at Sinai, and Paul insists that the law, which came centuries later, could not annul this promise or change the way the inheritance would be received (Gal. 3:17–19).

But the fact that God gives a promise before the law brings up a question. Why did God give the law after he had given the promise?

Edward Fisher speaks of the covenant of works being renewed at Sinai, language that, if we aren’t careful, can sound as though God had placed Israel back on a path to life through obedience. However, Fisher says that God intended “that man, being thereby convinced of his weakness, might flee to Christ”.1

The commandments were given to expose what God requires, including the love of Him and neighbor that reaches beyond outward conduct into the heart. Paul argues that the law was added because of transgressions and that Scripture has shut up all under sin, so that the promise might be given through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:19, 22). Its searching work serves the promise by making clear why we need the righteousness of another.

At the opening of the Ten Commandments, God identifies himself as the Lord who brought Israel out of Egypt before he tells the people what to do (Exod. 20:2). Thomas Boston points to that preface as a witness to the promise God made to Abraham, and he understands the commandments that follow as a rule of life for those who receive God’s promise by faith.2 Deliverance from Egypt placed the nation among a people who heard God’s word and received his ordinances, although belonging to that nation did not mean that every Israelite trusted the promised seed. The law could therefore confront a self-righteous hearer with the demands he could never meet, while directing a believer who knew the Lord’s mercy.

For those who belong to Christ, the commandments continue to speak with their full claim upon the heart and life. Jesus has borne the curse of the law for his people, and Paul can therefore say that there is no condemnation for those who are in him (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 8:1). Selfishness remains sin and obedience remains a duty, while the command now reaches the believer through the Mediator who has already brought him near to God. Fisher explains the order of this life in the words: “Live, and do this”.3

There is room in that order for a conscience to be searched and for sin to be confessed without making repentance a new price of admission. When the law shows a Christian that he has spoken cruelly to his family, neglected a neighbor, or protected a cherished sin, he should take its judgment seriously. He can confess the wrong, seek forgiveness from those he has harmed, and turn toward the obedience Christ commands, while resting his acceptance before God upon Christ’s finished work. The law has exposed something real, and the gospel tells him where to go with it.

So, the next time the commandments expose your sin, hear their demand in its full strength and resist the urge to bargain for God’s favor with a promise to do better.

Instead, bring the sin they uncover to Christ, whose righteousness answers the demand you could never meet and whose mercy receives sinners who come to him.

Then take up the obedience set before you, knowing that the Lord who commands you has already given you life in his Son.

Marrowcast Episode 9

If Abraham was justified by faith and God had already established his promise, why did the law come afterward?

Paul raises that exact question in Galatians 3: “Why then the law?”

In this episode, Jeff and John continue tracing the relationship between promise, law, faith, and Christ. The law given through Moses did not overturn the promise made to Abraham, nor did it introduce a second way of obtaining life. Instead, Paul places the law within the unfolding history of redemption and points us toward its purpose in relation to sin and the coming of Christ.

We discuss what it means that the law was “added because of transgressions,” why the law cannot give life, and how confusing the law with the promise inevitably obscures the freeness of the gospel.

Along the way, we consider the continuing importance of distinguishing law and gospel without treating the law as unnecessary or opposed to God’s gracious purposes.

Marrow Theology, Practically Applied.

Listen and learn more at marrowcast.com

That is usually the first question people ask when they come to Genesis 14. Was he simply a historical priest-king? A pre-incarnate appearance of Christ? Something else entirely?

But maybe that is not the most important question.

Melchizedek appears at a crucial moment in Abraham’s life. God had already given Abraham the promise, yet Abraham was living in circumstances that did not always look like the promise was coming true.

Then Melchizedek arrives.

He blesses Abraham and brings bread and wine. He does not give Abraham a new promise. He confirms the one God had already spoken.

And that may be the point we are most tempted to miss: faith is not always strengthened by receiving something new. Often, it is strengthened by being brought back to what God has already said.

Melchizedek ultimately points beyond himself to Christ, the true Priest-King, in whom the promises of God are certain.

Evan. They were delivered to them as the Covenant of Works.1

Nom. But, by your favour, sir, you know that these people were the posterity of Abraham, and therefore were under that Covenant of Grace which God made with their father. Therefore I do not think they were delivered to them as the Covenant of Works; for you know the Lord never delivers the Covenant of Works to any who are under the Covenant of Grace.

Evan. Indeed it is true, the Lord did manifest so much love to the body of this nation, that all the natural seed of Abraham were externally, and by profession, under the Covenant of Grace made with their father Abraham — though it is to be feared that many of them were still under the Covenant of Works made with their father Adam.2

Nom. But sir, you know that in the preface to the Ten Commandments, the Lord calls himself by the name of their God in general; therefore it would seem they were all the people of God.3

Evan. That is not to the purpose;4 for many wicked and ungodly men, being in the visible church and under the external covenant,

Nom. But, sir, was the same Covenant of Works made with them that was made with Adam?

Evan. For the general substance of the duty, the law delivered on Mount Sinai, and formerly engraven on man’s heart, was the same law; so that at Mount Sinai, the Lord delivered nothing new — only it came more gently to Adam before his fall; but after his fall it came with thunder.

Nom. Yes sir, but as you said yourself, the Ten Commandments, as they were written in Adam’s heart, were but the matter of the Covenant of Works, and not the covenant itself, till the form was annexed to them — that is to say, till God and man were agreed on it. Now, we do not find that God and these people agreed upon any such terms at Mount Sinai.

Evan. Indeed;5 do you say so? Do you not remember that the Lord consented and agreed, when he said in Lev. 18.5, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live in them;” and in Deut. 27.26, when he said, “Cursed is he that does not confirm all the words of this law, to do them?” And do you not remember that the people consented and agreed when they said, Exo. 19.8, “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do?” And does not the apostle Paul give evidence that these words were the form of the Covenant of Works, when he says in Rom. 10.5, “Moses describes that righteousness which is of the law, that the man who does these things shall live in them;” and when he says in Gal. 3.10, “For it is written, Cursed is everyone that does not continue to do all things written in the book of the law?”6 And in Deu. 4.13, Moses expressly calls it a covenant, saying, “And he declared his Commandments, in Exo. 20.2 and Deu. 5.6, stands in the original both as part of a sentence joined to the first commandments, and also as an entire sentence, separated from them, and enclosed by itself.

On the whole, one may compare this with the first promulgation of the Covenant of Grace by the messenger of the covenant in paradise, Gen. 3.15; and with the flaming sword placed there by the same hand, “turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life.” covenant to you, which he commanded you to perform, even the Ten Commandments; and he wrote them on tablets of stone.” Now, this was not the Covenant of Grace; for speaking of this covenant afterwards in Deu. 5.3, Moses says, “God did not make this covenant with your fathers, but with you;” and by “fathers” may be meant (says Mr. Ainsworth) all the patriarchs back to Adam who had the promise of the covenant of Christ.7 Therefore, if it had been the Covenant of Grace, he would have said, God did make this covenant with them, rather than he did not.8

Nom. And do any of our godly and modern writers agree with you on this point?

Evan. Yes, indeed. Polonius says, “The Covenant of Works is that in which God promises everlasting life to a man who in all respects performs perfect obedience to the Law of Works, adding to it threatenings of eternal death if he does not perform perfect obedience to it. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, while he was in the first estate of integrity. God repeated and made the same covenant again by Moses with the people of Israel.” And Dr. Preston,9 on the New Covenant (p. 317) says, “The Covenant of Works runs in these terms, ‘Do this and you shall live, and I will be your God.’ This was the covenant which was made with Adam, and the covenant that is expressed by Moses in the Moral Law.” And Mr. Pemble (Vind. Fid. p. 152) says,

“By the Covenant of Works, we understand what we call in one word ‘the law,’ namely, that means of bringing man to salvation, which is by perfect obedience to the will of God. There are also two respective administrations of it: the First is with Adam before his fall, when immortality and happiness were promised to man, and confirmed by an external symbol of the tree of life, on condition that he continued obedient to God in that particular commandment of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as well as in all other things. The Second administration of this covenant was renewing it with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. There, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue that were first graven in man’s heart,10 God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all the duties required of man towards God and his neighbour, as expressed in the Decalogue. According to the tenor of this law, God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing on them all the blessings of life and happiness, on condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded. They accepted this condition, promising absolute obedience, Exo. 19.8, ‘All things which the Lord has said, we will do;’ and also submitting themselves to punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, ‘Amen’ to the curse of the law, ‘Cursed is everyone that does not confirm all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen.’” Deu 27.26

And Mr. Walker, on the Covenant (p. 128), says that “the first part of the covenant which God made with Israel at Horeb, was nothing but a renewing of the old Covenant of Works11 which God made with Adam in paradise.” And it is generally laid down by our divines that we are delivered from the Law by Christ, as it is a covenant.12

Was Abraham saved differently than Christians are today?

In this episode of Marrowcast, Jeffrey and John continue through The Marrow of Modern Divinity, moving into Chapter 2, Section II.2: “The Promise renewed to Abraham.”

Long before Moses received the Ten Commandments at Sinai, Scripture says the gospel was preached to Abraham. The promise first given after the fall becomes clearer: the promised seed is Christ, and through him the blessing extends to the nations.

Abraham was not justified by keeping the law. He received God’s promise by faith before the law was ever given. His obedience followed that promise; it was not the ground of it.

Along the way, Jeffrey and John look at Melchizedek, the promised seed, the land of Canaan, and why these Old Testament types point beyond themselves to Christ and the inheritance found in him.

The promise comes before the performance. Faith receives what God promises. And Abraham’s story reminds us that grace was never God’s Plan B.

If you’ve ever wondered whether your standing with God rises and falls with your performance, this episode is for you. Listen, share it with someone who needs the reminder, and subscribe at Marrowcast.com for new episodes, articles, resources, and listener Q&A.

#Marrowcast #JustificationByFaith #Abraham #FaithNotWorks #Gospel #ReformedTheology #CovenantTheology #TheMarrowOfModernDivinity #LawAndGospel #JesusChrist #GraceAlone #FaithAlone #ChristianPodcast #BibleTheology #Genesis

While this sounds like an extremely Christian thing to say, it isn’t. It is still a complete misunderstanding of the kind of salvation fallen sinners need.

Adam did not need another chance, because another chance would have just placed him in the same place and with the same problem that had already condemned him. Salvation required someone who could accomplish what Adam could no longer accomplish for himself.

The Covenant

Adam was created righteous and placed in covenant fellowship with God. God graciously created Adam, furnished him with every good thing, and entered into covenant with him. Within that covenant, however, life and death were placed before Adam according to the terms God established.

Fisher summarizes the covenant in The Marrow as “Do this, and you shall live,” together with the corresponding threat, “If you do not do it, you shall die.” The covenant therefore contained a command, a promise of life connected with obedience, and the threat of death for disobedience.2

Spoiler Alert: Adam disobeyed.

With this in mind, the significance of the fall extends far beyond just one isolated sin. Adam violated the covenant and incurred its curse; he corrupted himself and brought his posterity with him into guilt and death. The apostle Paul describes humanity’s condition in light of this when he says that through one man sin entered the world, through sin came death, and through the trespass of the one came condemnation (Rom. 5:12).

This is important to understand, because a second opportunity does not fix an existing guilt. Telling a condemned man to perform better tomorrow does nothing about the verdict already standing over him today, and even perfect obedience from this point forward, were such a thing possible for fallen Adam, would not have erased yesterday’s rebellion.

Humanity stands guilty in Adam and requires a righteousness it does not possess.

The sinner needs a Savior.

The Promise

Within the scene of judgment, God announces something Adam could never have produced and had no right to demand. He promises that a Seed would come.

God declares to the serpent that he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between their respective offspring. The woman’s Seed will crush the serpent’s head, although his own heel will be bruised.

Having described Adam as a child of wrath, subject to the curse and possessing nothing due to him except divine judgment, Fisher writes that “the Lord promised Christ to him.” And after quoting Genesis 3:15, Fisher states that “This promise of Christ, the woman’s seed (ver. 15), was the gospel.”3

The gospel enters the biblical story as a promise concerning Christ given to a man who has already broken covenant with God. Everything Adam possesses at this moment demanded judgment. God nevertheless speaks of a coming Deliverer.

The initiative belongs entirely to God because the remedy belongs entirely to God.

No Second Chances

Our instinct toward second-chance Christianity only happens because the covenant of works remains attractive to fallen humans.

Truth be known, we prefer another opportunity because another opportunity leaves some room for us to boast. But Scripture closes that road.

Redemptive history following Adam demonstrates this point repeatedly.

Noah receives a cleansed world, and sin continued. Israel receives God’s law, and sin continued. But thanks be to God, the New Testament makes explicit what Genesis announces in promise.

Christ comes as the representative man whose obedience answers Adam’s disobedience. Where Adam’s trespass brought condemnation, Christ’s righteous work brings justification and life to those united to him. He obeys under the law, bears its curse upon the cross, enters death, and rises victorious.

Reducing Christianity to a second chance is really an affront to the gospel. A troubled conscience does not need the demands of God lowered until they become achievable; it needs to know that the righteousness God requires has been fulfilled by another and that this Christ is freely given in the gospel.

At the moment when human obedience collapses, God begins to direct history toward the obedience of the coming Seed. From that promise onward, Scripture carries the sinner’s hope toward the One who would enter Adam’s ruined world, bear Adam’s curse, defeat Adam’s enemy, and bring his people into a life Adam could never recover for them.

God did not give Adam a second chance.

He promised him Christ.

That is why assurance cannot finally rest on the question, “Is my faith sufficient?” Because our faith will always appear weak when we turn it into the object of our confidence.

The better question is: Is Christ sufficient?

And the answer is yes.

Faith receives. Christ saves.

Marrow Theology, Practically Applied.

🎙️ Listen to Marrowcast at marrowcast.com

Sect. 2 — The Promise renewed to Abraham.

Ant. What followed then?

Evan. Why, then the promise was turned into a covenant with Abraham and his seed, and often repeated, so that in his seed all nations would be blessed,1 Gen. 12.3; 18.18; and 22.18. This promise and covenant was the very voice itself of the gospel, being a true testimony of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul bears witness to this, saying “the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand,” Gal. 3.8, saying, “In you, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” And to better confirm Abraham’s faith in this promise of Christ, it is said in Gen. 14.19 that Melchisedec came forth and met him, and blessed him. Now, the apostle says in Heb. 7.1-3, and 6.20, “This Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God, and king of righteousness, and king of peace, without father and without mother; and so he was like the Son of God, who is a priest forever, in the order of Melchisedec;” and both king of righteousness and king of peace, Jer. 23.6; Isa. 9.6; indeed, he is without father as touching his manhood, and without mother as touching his godhead.

By this we are given to understand that it was the purpose of God that Melchisedec should, in these particulars, resemble the person and office of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and by God’s own appointment, he was a type of Christ to Abraham, to ratify and confirm the promise made to him and to his seed in respect to the eternal covenant;2 namely, that he and his believing seed would be blessed in Christ, as Melchisedec had blessed him.3 Now, let me tell you more: some have thought it most probable, and indeed have said that if we search out this truth without partiality, we will find that this Melchisedec, who appeared to Abraham, was none other than the Son of God, manifested by a special dispensation and privilege to Abraham in the flesh, who is therefore said to have “seen his day and rejoiced.4 John 8.56. Moreover, in Gen. 15.17 we read that the Lord again confirmed this covenant with Abraham; for when Abraham had divided the beasts, God came between the parts like a smoking furnace and a burning lamp, which,5 as some have thought, primarily typified the torment and rending of Christ; and the furnace and fiery lamp typified the wrath of God which ran between, yet did not consume the rent and torn nature.

And the blood of circumcision typified the blood of Christ;6 and the resolved sacrificing of Isaac on Mount Moriah, by God’s appointment, prefigured and foreshowed that, by offering up Christ — the promised seed — in the very same place, all nations would be saved. Now this covenant, thus made and confirmed with Abraham, was renewed with Isaac, Gen. 26.4, and made known to Jacob by Jesus Christ himself. For that man who wrestled with Jacob was none other than the man Christ Jesus; for he himself said that Jacob would be called Israel, a wrestler and prevailer with God; and Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, because he had “seen God face to face,” Gen. 32.28, 30.

And Jacob left it by his last will to his children in these words, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, till Shiloh comes,” Gen. 49.10; that is to say, kings will come from Judah one after another, and many in number, till at last the Lord Jesus comes, who is King of kings and Lord of lords; or as the Targum of Jerusalem and Onkelos translate it, until Christ the Anointed comes.

Nom. But, sir, are you sure that this promised seed was meant of Christ?

Evan. The apostle puts that out of doubt, Gal. 3.16, saying, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed.7 He does not say — and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to your seed, which is Christ.”8 And no doubt these godly patriarchs so understood it.

Ant. But, sir, the great promise that was made to them, as I conceive it, and which they seemed to have the most regard for, was the land of Canaan.

Evan. There is no doubt that these godly patriarchs saw their heavenly inheritance (by Christ) through the promise of the land of Canaan, as the apostle testifies about Abraham, Heb. 11.9, 10, saying, “He sojourned in a strange country, and looked for a city having foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” “By this it is evident,” says Calvin (Instit. p. 204), “that the height and eminence of Abraham’s faith was looking for an everlasting life in heaven.” He gives a similar testimony of Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, “All these died in the faith,”9 Heb. 11.13 — implying that they did not expect to receive the fruit of the promise till after death. And therefore, in all their travails, they had before their eyes the blessedness of the life to come. This caused old Jacob to say at his death, “Lord, I have waited for your salvation,” Gen. 49.18. The Chaldee paraphrase expounds this phrase thus, “Our father Jacob did not say, I expect the salvation of Gideon, son of Joash, which is a temporal salvation, nor the salvation of Samson, son of Manoah, which is a transitory salvation, but the salvation of Christ, the Son of David, who shall come, and bring unto himself the sons of Israel, whose salvation my soul desires.” And so you see that this covenant, made with Abraham in Christ, was the comfort and support of these and the rest of the godly fathers, until their departure out of Egypt.

Ant. And what followed then?

Evan. Why, then Christ Jesus was most clearly manifested to them in the Passover lamb; for as that lamb was to be without spot or blemish, Exo. 12.5, even so was Christ, 1Pet. 1.19. And as that lamb was taken up the tenth day of the first new moon in March, even so, on the very same day of the same month, Christ came to Jerusalem to suffer his passion. And as that lamb was killed on the fourteenth day at evening, just then, on the same day and at the same hour, Christ gave up the ghost; and as the blood of that lamb was to be sprinkled on the Israelites’ doors, Exo. 12.7, even so the blood of Christ is sprinkled on believers’ hearts by faith, 1Pet. 1.2. And their deliverance out of Egypt was a figure of their redemption by Christ;10 their passing through the Red Sea was a type of baptism,11 when Christ was to come in the flesh; and their manna in the wilderness, and water out of the rock, resembled the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; and hence it is that the apostle says,1Cor.10.2-4, “They all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” And when they had come to Mount Sinai, the Lord delivered the Ten Commandments to them.

Then Fisher gives the weight of the passage: the promised seed of the woman is Christ, and “this promise of Christ, the woman’s seed…was the gospel,” serving as “the only comfort” of Adam and the godly fathers until Abraham. Fisher’s point is simple: God’s first revealed comfort to fallen humanity was Christ promised in the gospel.

The words come in a scene of judgment, and the serpent is addressed as the enemy who will be crushed, yet Adam and Eve hear, in the place where condemnation is deserved, that God will provide a seed from the woman who will suffer and conquer for them. God promises a Redeemer who will enter the nature that fell, suffer under the bruising of the serpent, and crush the serpent’s head through that suffering.

Boston’s note keeps the burden of salvation where Scripture places it, because he says man’s restoration to God’s favor and salvation were to be effected by another, since our first parents were given a new covenant in which a Savior was promised as their hope.1

This is where our legal frame fights the gospel, because the legal frame can tolerate Christ as necessary while still resisting Christ as everything. We say we believe in grace alone while functioning as though God gives Christ to the ashamed enough, awakened enough, transformed enough, or exhausted enough.

Adam had no such qualification to bring, because he stood before God exposed, guilty, afraid, hiding, and empty-handed.

God’s first word of hope to fallen humanity was promise.

The gospel saves sinners by giving Christ, who fulfills the law, bears the curse, conquers the enemy, and covers the shame of those who cannot cover themselves.

However, Adam and Eve’s attempted covering still speaks, because the fig leaves show humanity’s effort to manage shame without receiving covering from God. Some fig leaves are distraction, denial, blame-shifting, anger, busyness, and entertainment, while other fig leaves are moral reform, public seriousness, visible sorrow, accountability language, and reputation management.

The issue is who provides the covering, because every covering stitched from resolve, sorrow, seriousness, doctrinal accuracy, emotional intensity, or improvement will be too thin for the presence of God. Fisher connects the skins God provided with sacrifice and says Adam and Eve’s “sin and shame were covered with Christ’s righteousness,” though that typology should be stated with care because Genesis itself does not unfold the point with the same fullness.2

This makes Genesis 3:15 a word for the Christian who has sinned again and now feels that Christ must be approached after a period of quarantine.

The first gospel promise confronts the instinct that says God’s first word after your worst failure must be a demand for improvement, because God’s first word of hope after Adam’s fall was promise. The Son of God comes near, takes flesh, assumes our nature, enters the field where we were conquered, submits himself to suffering, and redeems sinners through triumph in the place of bruising.

Boston says the promise revealed that the Savior would become man as the seed of the woman, that he needed to suffer with his heel, namely his humanity, bruised to death, and that by his death he would make a full conquest over the devil and destroy his works.3

The bruised heel and the crushed head belong together, because the cross is the place where the serpent’s strike becomes his ruin. That matters for Christians who suffer, because many believers expect the victory of Christ to remove every bruise in this life, while Genesis 3:15 teaches us to see victory through suffering.

Some of you are limping under guilt that has stayed longer than expected, affliction that has refused to become a clean testimony, temptation that still humiliates you, grief that still enters the room, or weakness that makes you feel like a poor witness to the Christian life. The promise does not shame bruised Christians for failing to look triumphant, because the Redeemer conquers with a bruised heel. This promise is received by faith, though faith must be understood according to the nature of the promise instead of treated as a new work in the place of Adam’s lost obedience.

Boston says the promise revealed saving interest in Christ and his salvation by faith alone, namely by believing the promise with particular application to oneself and receiving Christ, since these things are revealed “by way of a simple promise”.4

Faith is the receiving of the Christ who is given in the promise.

When the anxious Christian asks whether his faith is strong enough, he is asking an understandable question in a dangerous direction, because the strength of faith saves no one as though faith were the Redeemer.

The better question concerns Christ’s sufficiency, the truth of the promise, the victory of the seed of the woman, the freeness of Christ in the gospel, and the right of the empty hand to receive what God gives. This places repentance where it belongs, because repentance is grace’s fruit rather than grace’s price.

The same Christ who justifies also sanctifies, the same Christ who covers shame also cures our love of hiding, and the same Christ who is received by faith gives the Spirit who turns sinners from sin.

When your conscience tells you to sew something more impressive before you come to God, Genesis 3 tells you that your leaves will fail in his presence. When your guilt tells you God waits for improvement before he speaks mercy, Genesis 3 tells you that God’s first word of hope to fallen humanity was promise. When your shame tells you to hide until you become less exposed, Genesis 3 tells you that Christ was promised for exposed sinners who could not clothe themselves.

God’s first word to fallen humanity was promise, and that promise means Christ would come, Christ would suffer, Christ would conquer, and Christ would be enough for sinners who have run out of leaves.

One question specifically raised is: if God has eternally chosen a particular people in Christ unto salvation, can the gospel still be offered freely to every sinner who hears it?

This was actually one of the very questions that was being asked as the Marrow of Modern Divinity was coming to popularity. Well-meaning pastors were trying to be honest with the scriptures, and honest with their theology, but were creating a big problem.

Not to bury the lede (this spelling is correct, but for those with ADHD, here is the reason and the origin of the phrase), the answer is yes, and the reason is found in the relationship between God’s eternal purpose and the revealed promise of Christ.

Let’s make sure that we understand our categories before we get into the explanation.

Election concerns God’s purpose to save.

The gospel concerns the way Christ is proclaimed and received in time.

And Scripture never requires the sinner to know the decree of election before coming to Christ, nor does the preacher need access to that decree before calling sinners to believe. The gospel comes to sinners as a revealed word from God, and that word gives sufficient warrant for faith.

This is important because election can easily be handled in a way that creates uncertainty where Scripture gives a promise. A sinner hears that God chose his people before the foundation of the world and begins asking whether he is included among them, or whether those who hear are elect.

This is why, in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher begins the discussion of grace with God’s eternal purpose. Election belongs within an eternal purpose. God chooses sinners in Christ unto salvation, and that choice rests in his grace and not in something foreseen in them. This means election explains why sinners come to Christ, but it does not establish who is permitted to come.

Jesus actually brings these truths together in John 6:37:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

The first clause speaks of the Father giving a people to the Son and promises that those given to Christ will come to him.

The second clause speaks directly to the sinner who comes, and promises that Christ will receive him.

This distinction is important, and must be understood in order for us to understand the free offer.

The warrant of faith is found in the gospel promise itself. A sinner may come to Christ because Christ is presented to him in the gospel as sufficient for sinners and because Christ promises to receive those who come. The preacher may proclaim Christ to every hearer and call every hearer to repentance and faith because God has commanded that the gospel be preached in this way, and because the preacher does not have the ability to identify the elect before preaching.

The same principle applies to the hearer. The sinner is not told to investigate the counsel of God before believing. He is confronted with the command to repent and the promise that Christ receives sinners.

Again, to keep the categories clear, election belongs to the eternal counsel of God, and the gospel belongs to what God has made known and commanded us to proclaim.

We do not reason from what God has hidden in order to qualify what he has revealed.

When Christ says that whoever comes to him will not be cast out, the troubled sinner has no warrant to insert anything that he may think or feel into that promise, and neither does the preacher.

The doctrine of election also gives us an explanation for the efficacy of the gospel.

If salvation ultimately depended upon the sinner producing faith from within himself, then the universal proclamation of Christ would provide an opportunity that fallen humanity would uniformly reject, namely because of the sinner’s inability under the covenant of works. Man owes obedience and cannot render it. His problem includes both guilt and corruption. This is the reason that salvation must go farther than a bare invitation.

To carry the flow of how election works forward, Fisher explains that God purposes salvation in Christ, Christ undertakes the obligations of his people as their surety, and the Spirit brings sinners to faith.

In short, election ensures that the preaching of Christ will actually result in sinners actually coming to him.

That gives us another way to state the relationship between the two. The free offer tells us that Christ is truly presented to sinners, while election explains why that offer becomes effectual in those whom God brings to faith.

This also helps guard assurance from becoming consumed by speculation. A believer may ask whether his sins prove that he was never elect, or whether the weakness of his faith places him outside the saving purpose of God. If he begins there, his attention quickly turns inward. But election understood points him toward Christ, where the believer’s confidence rests upon a Savior who has undertaken the debt of his people.

This is also the reason that election is always spoken of as being ‘in Christ’.

God’s choice cannot be separated from the mediator through whom salvation is accomplished. The Father’s purpose includes the Son’s work, and the Spirit applies that work in time.

Seen this way, election gives no basis for imagining that God secretly works against the gospel he publicly proclaims. The Father who elects is the Father who gives the Son; the Son who accomplishes redemption is the Son who promises to receive sinners, and the Spirit who applies redemption is the Spirit who brings sinners through the gospel to Christ.

Every sinner who hears the gospel may be told that Christ is sufficient, that repentance and faith are commanded, and that everyone who comes to Christ will be received. And the preacher does not need to soften election to preach the free offer of the gospel, nor does he need to qualify the gospel to preserve election.

God’s election does not limit the free offer; it simply explains it.

Before the sinner ever moved toward God, God purposed grace in Christ.

There is a particular form of spiritual anxiety that arises when a person begins to suspect that their salvation depends on what they did in the beginning.

Questions like: Was my faith strong enough, or sincere enough? Did I repent of enough sin, or was I under a sufficient amount of conviction?

Once such questions begin to govern the conscience, conversion itself can become an object of constant reconstruction, so that the believer repeatedly searches his memory in the hope of locating some moment in time or a place that will finally assure him that everything began as it should have.

The difficulty is not that such questions are entirely meaningless, since Scripture certainly speaks of true and false faith and the necessity of genuine repentance. The true difficulty happens when troubled conscience begins to treat its movement toward Christ as the foundation upon which the reality of salvation finally rests.

If salvation begins with the sinner’s movement toward God, then the conscience must finally determine whether that movement was adequate; if, however, salvation begins in the gracious purpose of God in Christ, then the believer may learn to rest not in the strength of his first act, but in the mercy of the God who purposed Christ before the world began.

Grace Begins in God

When Fisher turns to the covenant of grace, he does not first describe the sinner’s preparation, awakening, repentance, or faith, but takes us instead into the eternal purpose of God.

He describes the gospel as the joyful tidings that God, to whom all things are eternally present, “purposed before all time” the sending of his Son, then promised him in time, and finally performed that promise in the fullness of time.1

The initiative belongs to God because the gracious purpose precedes the sinner altogether. Before any sinner sought mercy, mercy had been purposed in Christ.

This is one of the deepest comforts contained in the doctrine of God’s eternal purpose. God is not reactive in the sense that he waits upon the sinner and then adjusts his disposition accordingly. Rather, the acts of God in history proceed from the gracious counsel of God, so that what is accomplished in Christ is the historical execution of a mercy that did not originate in us.

Fisher presents the Father as requiring from Christ what fallen sinners themselves would owe, and he describes the Son as the One who willingly undertakes their cause. To put this into language that is easily understood, he states that Christ, “from everlasting struck hands with God” as the sinner’s Surety, assuming the obligation to satisfy what the sinner could not satisfy and to bear what the sinner could not bear.2

The category of suretyship is essential because it prevents us from reducing Christ to the one who merely makes salvation possible while leaving the decisive accomplishment to the sinner. A surety does not simply provide the debtor with a more manageable payment; the surety answers for the obligation itself. Fisher therefore insists that Christ became liable for what his people owed, because in becoming their Surety he undertook their cause as his own.

Thomas Boston presses the same point when he observes that God not only accepts satisfaction from a Surety rather than demanding it from us, but provides the Surety himself and freely gives all things for his sake.3

Faith Does Not Create Grace

Faith is necessary because faith receives Christ.

The sinner is not justified on account of an eternal purpose considered apart from union with Christ, nor does the Marrow teach a justification possessed irrespective of faith. Fisher repeatedly directs the sinner to receive and rest upon the Christ freely presented in the gospel.

What must be denied is that faith constitutes the originating cause of grace, as though God’s gracious purpose awaited the sinner’s believing before it could take effect. The hand receives the gift, but the hand does not originate the gift, determine its value, or move the giver to provide it.

Boston warns that taking the view of faith coming first can cause distressed consciences to become entangled in endless inquiries concerning the being, kind, measure, and degree of such qualifications, with the result that the sinner remains occupied with examining whether he is fit to come rather than actually coming.4

Troubled believers frequently assume that their lack of assurance must arise from the weakness of their faith, and therefore conclude that the solution is to examine their believing until they can discover something impressive enough to quiet the conscience.

The trembling sinner and the assured saint do not possess two different Saviors proportioned to the strength of their believing. The sufficiency of Christ is not measured by the intensity of the believer’s apprehension of him, because Christ’s righteousness possesses its value from his person and work, not from the quality of the act by which we receive him.

The anxious conscience must learn to distinguish between the imperfection of faith and the perfection of Christ. My faith may fluctuate, but Christ’s righteousness does not fluctuate. My sense of acceptance may grow dim, but Christ’s obedience does not become less complete. My repentance may remain painfully imperfect, but Christ’s satisfaction does not thereby become deficient.

The believer’s hope rests upon an accomplished righteousness outside himself, received through faith but never constituted by the quality of that faith.

Fisher, in line with this, writes that justification is “freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.”5

The adverb freely must be allowed to do its evangelical work. We are not accepted because our faith is admirable, because our repentance is sufficient, or because our conversion story displays an ideal amount of sincerity.

We are accepted because Christ has redeemed, Christ has obeyed, Christ has satisfied, and Christ is received by faith as the One in whom righteousness and life are found.

God Was Not Improvising

There is another layer of comfort contained in the doctrine of eternal purpose; God was not improvising when he saved his people.

The fall did not place God in a situation for which He was left scrambling for what to do. The sending of Christ belongs to the eternal purpose of God, which means that redemption in history reveals rather than creates the gracious will of God toward sinners in Christ.

The anxious sinner does not need to climb into eternity in order to know whether God is gracious. He needs to look to Christ. The eternal purpose comforts us not because it gives us access to God’s secret will apart from the gospel, but because it tells us that the Christ revealed in the gospel is not an improvised remedy or a tentative offer. He is the One whom God purposed, promised, sent, and accepted as the Surety and Mediator of his people.

Before the sinner ever moved toward God, God purposed grace in Christ, and therefore the believer’s hope does not rest upon the strength of his first move but upon the eternal mercy of God revealed and accomplished in the Surety.

The first decisive movement in salvation was never yours, because grace was already in Christ before you were, and the Christ whom you receive by faith is the Christ whom God purposed, promised, sent, and gave for sinners.

The eternal purpose of God makes the gospel more certain, because it teaches us that Christ is not God’s response but the expression of his gracious will.

For more on Christ as the sinner’s Surety and the eternal purpose of grace, you can listen to Marrowcast episode 6 and subscribe at Marrowcast.com

In this episode of Marrowcast, John and Jeffrey begin Chapter 2 of The Marrow of Modern Divinity and explore what Fisher calls “the eternal purpose of grace.”

Before the foundation of the world, God purposed to save fallen sinners through Jesus Christ. What He purposed before time, He promised in time and performed in the fullness of time through the incarnation, obedience, death, and resurrection of His Son.

This does not mean that God simply ignored His law or relaxed the demands of His justice. The debt still had to be paid, the curse still had to be borne, and the corruption of fallen humanity still had to be repaired.

The good news is that God laid the whole burden upon Christ.

Jesus entered the covenant as the sinner’s Surety, taking responsibility for a debt that was not His own. He satisfied divine justice, fulfilled the law, bore its curse, and secured the salvation of His people.

Grace does not sneak sinners around the law. Grace gives sinners the whole Christ.

In This Episode

John and Jeffrey discuss:

• Why the covenant of grace was not God’s backup plan

• What The Marrow means by the “law of faith”

• The gospel as “good, merry, glad, and joyful tidings”

• How God purposed grace before time, promised grace in time, and performed grace in Christ

• Why divine mercy never comes at the expense of divine justice

• What it means for Christ to become the sinner’s Surety

• Why God looked to Christ for the payment of His people’s debt

• The difference between Christ satisfying our guilt and the Spirit repairing our fallen nature

• Why election should comfort sinners rather than prevent them from coming to Christ

• How the law condemns, while the gospel freely gives us Christ

Key Takeaway

Grace is older than your guilt.

The debt was ours.
The bond was Christ’s.
The payment was full.

God looked for the debt from Christ, and Christ paid it all.

Scripture Discussed

Ephesians 1:3–5
2 Timothy 1:9
Titus 1:2
Psalm 85:10
John 6:37
Galatians 4:4–5
Hebrews 7:22
Romans 5:12–19

Reading

The Marrow of Modern Divinity
Chapter 2: “Of the Law of Faith, or Covenant of Grace”
Section I: “Of the Eternal Purpose of Grace”

Subscribe at Marrowcast.com to receive new episodes and articles exploring law and gospel, assurance, Christian obedience, and the free offer of Jesus Christ to sinners.

Marrow Theology, Practically Applied.

The conscience becomes troubled, the believer resolves to pray more consistently, avoid occasions of temptation, and demonstrate through improved conduct that the repentance is genuine. Although confession, vigilance, and practical reform all belong to the Christian life, they can quietly be turned into something they were never meant to be: an attempt to repair our standing before God through future obedience.

Beneath many sincere resolutions lies the hope that God will accept tomorrow’s improvement as compensation for yesterday’s failure. We may never express the thought so bluntly, yet the underlying reasoning is familiar: I have failed, but I will begin again; I will do better now, and perhaps my new obedience will restore the favor I have forfeited.

The problem is not that the believer desires greater obedience, since grace always teaches those whom it saves to renounce ungodliness and live in holiness. The problem arises when obedience is assigned a justifying function.

Fisher portrays fallen humanity as naturally inclined toward the covenant of works. This instinct appears not only in openly moralistic religion but also in the troubled Christian who, after sinning, tries to negotiate a new beginning with God.

In the Marrow, Neophytus recounts how the fear of death and judgment led him to promise that, if God prolonged his life, he would reform his behavior. His outward conduct improved, but because his confidence rested upon the quality of that improvement, he remained spiritually miserable. Whenever he compared himself with people who seemed more devout, he concluded that his own efforts were insufficient and that his condition remained hopeless.1 His mistake was not that he desired reformation, but that he looked to reformation for the peace that can be found only in Christ.

Why Adam Could Not Restart the Covenant

The covenant of works required perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, promising life upon obedience and threatening death upon disobedience.

After Adam fell, Nomesta asks whether he might have renewed the same covenant and recovered life by keeping it from that point forward. His answer is unequivocal: the covenant of works, considered as a way of recovery for fallen humanity, was incapable of renovation.

It had originally been established between God and an upright creature, whereas Adam had now become guilty, corrupt, and hostile to God. Although fallen people continually attempt to renew the covenant by promising obedience and seeking life through performance, God does not reopen it as a saving arrangement.2

The breach of the covenant did not remove Adam’s obligation to obey, because God’s moral authority did not disappear when the creature rebelled. Adam lost the ability to render perfect obedience, but he lost that ability through his own sin, and a self-caused inability cannot cancel a righteous obligation. God therefore remained free from the promise of life attached to the unbroken covenant, while Adam remained bound to the obedience that the Creator had always possessed the right to require.

This is why the law, after the fall, cannot become an instrument of recovery. It continues to reveal righteousness, expose corruption, and pronounce judgment, but it cannot restore the life that Adam forfeited. Fisher uses the image of the flaming sword at Eden’s gate: the law that once marked the path of life for an upright man now bars the sinner from returning to paradise through personal obedience.3 The sinner may attempt to climb back through reform, but the road of law-keeping remains closed.

Man’s Double Debt

Fisher explains the impossibility of recovery through the law by describing Adam as liable for a double debt. Fallen man owes satisfaction for the sin already committed, while he also owes perfect obedience for the whole future course of his life.

The first debt concerns guilt.

Once the covenant had been broken, justice required satisfaction for the offense, and no amount of future obedience could serve as payment for past transgression. Even if Adam had somehow obeyed perfectly from the moment after the fall, that obedience would merely have fulfilled his present obligation; it could not have endured the penalty incurred by the previous act of rebellion. Doing what is required today does not erase the guilt of having failed yesterday.

Fisher further argues that Adam, as a finite creature, could not provide a satisfaction proportionate to the offense committed against the infinite majesty of God. If he attempted to satisfy justice by suffering eternally, he would remain under punishment without ever reaching a point at which satisfaction could be called complete. A condemned sinner can endure judgment, but he cannot transform that judgment into a finished atonement.4

The second debt concerns righteousness.

Adam still owed God perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, yet his nature had become morally ruined through the fall. His understanding was darkened, his will was corrupted, and his affections were disordered, so that he lacked the spiritual ability to satisfy even the ordinary demands of holiness, much less the comprehensive righteousness required by the covenant of works.

For this reason, salvation requires more than the cancellation of guilt. The sinner needs both satisfaction for disobedience and the positive righteousness that the law demands. A clean slate would not be enough, because eternal life under the covenant of works was promised not to moral neutrality but to perfect obedience.

Why Regeneration Does Not Fix The Problem

The regenerate person has been truly renewed by the Holy Spirit, and this renewal produces genuine faith, repentance, love, and obedience.

Nevertheless, regeneration does not make the believer perfectly righteous in this life, nor does sanctification become the basis upon which God pronounces the believer just.

Fisher states that no mere human being, including the regenerate, keeps the law perfectly in this life. The law requires love for God with the whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, while even the holiest Christian remains affected by indwelling sin. The law also condemns not only the outward act or deliberate consent of the will, but the sinful desire itself, which means that the inward motions of corruption are already contrary to its perfect standard (Marrow, p. 38).

The believer’s obedience is sincere, Spirit-produced, and acceptable to God through Christ, but it remains imperfect and therefore cannot endure the judgment of the law as a covenant of works.

Fisher therefore rejects the apparently modest proposal that the Christian should do his best and trust Christ to supply whatever remains deficient. Such a scheme still combines human obedience with Christ’s obedience as the ground of acceptance. Christ becomes a supplement to the sinner’s contribution rather than the sinner’s complete righteousness.

The sinner must either stand upon his own obedience or stand entirely upon the obedience of another.5

Christ, the Last Adam

The gospel does not announce that God has reduced the demands of the law, replaced perfection with sincerity, or established a milder covenant of works. It announces that Jesus Christ has come as the last Adam to fulfill every demand that the first Adam violated.

Christ entered history as the covenant head and surety of his people. He placed himself under the law, not as a private individual seeking life for himself, but as the representative of those whom he came to redeem. As their surety, he assumed responsibility for the whole debt, including both the righteousness they owed and the punishment their sins deserved.

Through his lifelong obedience, Christ rendered the perfect, personal, and perpetual righteousness required by the law. He loved the Father with an undivided heart, fulfilled every command in thought, affection, word, and action, and completed the course of obedience that Adam failed to perform. His righteousness was not merely exemplary but representative, because he obeyed in the place of his people.

Through his suffering and death, Christ also bore the curse of the broken covenant. The law proceeded against him in its full severity, not because he possessed personal guilt, but because he had taken responsibility for the guilt of others.

The distinction traditionally made between Christ’s active and passive obedience helps display the fullness of this work. His active obedience answers the demand for perfect righteousness, while his passive obedience answers the penalty due to transgression. Christ makes the double payment for the double debt that those fallen in Adam owe.

After sin, Christians should indeed make wise resolutions and pursue concrete reform, but they must do so as children seeking to please their Father rather than as covenant-breakers attempting to reverse their sentence.

Tomorrow’s obedience cannot pay yesterday’s debt, yet Christ’s obedience and death have already answered both the law’s demand and its curse.

The law has no reset button, because it offers no second probation and no arrangement in which future sincerity compensates for past rebellion. But God has provided something infinitely better than another opportunity to succeed where Adam failed: he has provided the last Adam, who fulfilled the law, bore the curse, satisfied justice, and gives his righteousness to sinners who rest in him.