The Reformed Christian Muse

 I posted this in the comment section at De Regno Christi in response to this post by D. Hart. I thought I would go ahead and post it here as well.

Trueman says: “Deny the covenant of works, for example, and one implicitly denies the whole structure of justification taught in the standards.”

The problem I have with this sentence, is that it makes the COW an essential ingredient in a proper formulation of the doctrine of justification. If this is true than how did Calvin for example have a credible formulation of justification in the Institutes when the COW doesn’t even appear one time in the entire text? As matter of fact not only is the COW absent from the Institutes but there is found a statement by Calvin in which he expresses his dislike of the use of the term “merit” as it relates to human works.

Calvin says:
First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness—that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

John Calvin - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 15, Section 2

So, if we are to say that the COW (defined in such a way that makes meritorious human works the bases of receiving favor from God) is essential to a proper formulation of justification, then how did Calvin get justification right?

For what it’s worth I would have agreed whole heartily  with Trueman a year ago, but I am finding that the CoW as defined in our modern reformed thought is absent in the early generations of the Reformers.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness—that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 15, Section 2

Earlier today I attempted to comment on Andy Gilman’s question for Pastor Doug Wilson concerning his statement defining “corporate justification”

Here is Pastor Wilson’s statement:

“…corporate justification is God’s forensic declaration that the human race has been legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ, the last Adam. The Church, as the bride of Christ, is the instantiation of that blessing in the world, for the world.”

Here is Andy Gilman’s question:

” …corporate justification is God’s forensic declaration that the human race has been legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ, the last Adam. The Church, as the bride of Christ, is the instantiation of that blessing in the world, for the world.”

I don’t understand how these two sentences fit together. In the first sentence, the human race is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ,” and in the second sentence, the Church is said to be an instance or example of “that blessing in the world, for the world.”

The first sentence indicates that the “human race” is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ.” Is “legal and covenantal reconstitution in Christ” the same blessing the second sentence is talking about, when it ascribes it to the Church? If so, then why is it said to be given to the “human race” in the first sentence? In Doug’s view, is corporate justification a blessing enjoyed by the whole human race, or is it limited to the church? And what does it mean to be “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ?”

I generally think of myself as possessing reasonably good reading comprehension, but I don’t get this.”

I will now add the comment I attempted to submit at Green Baggins. I am posting this here on my blog because Wordpress wouldn’t let me post it at Green Baggins for some reason.
My comments:

Andy,

This is the first time that I have seen this formulation by Pastor Wilson concerning “corporate” justification, but I think I may understand what he is trying to get at. Pastor Wilson, I’m sure, will correct me if I’m wrong.

 

Andy, you said: “I don’t understand how these two sentences fit together. In the first sentence, the human race is “legally and covenantally reconstituted in Christ,” and in the second sentence, the Church is said to be an instance or example of “that blessing in the world, for the world.”

 

In the first sentence we may possibly have what Vermigli would call “incarnational union”. Or we could also call “incarnational” representation. Christ, the God-man, represents the entire human race (this means every individual member thereof, not just as some abstract “class”) in at least 3 ways:

 

1. Christ took the human nature that is common to all in Adam (sin excepted).

2. Christ obeyed the law of God perfectly, the law that every member of the human race is duty bound to obey. Through his obedience he grew in favor with God and thus maintained that paternal/covenantal relationship with the Father that Adam and all his posterity forfeited.

3. Christ willing suffered the death (i.e. penalty) that every member of the human race deserves. He suffered the wrath of God as a member of the human race in the place of the human race. Christ bore “our” sins in his body on the tree, thus becoming the penal substitute for the human race.

 

John Calvin said this: “Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)

 

Through this “incarnational” representation, all the legal obstacles have been removed so that upon the condition of faith any member of the human race may be forgiven and delivered from the penalty of the law. Christ is the Justified One and all who are in Christ have the promise of justification upon the condition of faith.

 

W.G.T. Shedd said this: “Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2….This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily canceled all legal claims. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.

 

Now, in Pastor Wilson’s second sentence we have the normal means through which the benefits secured for the human race are administered. i.e. the Church who are the covenant people of God. Every baptized member of the Church of Christ bears a covenantal union with Him. They have signed and sealed to them in baptism the promise of God that upon the condition of faith they have all the benefits that Christ secured for them as members of the human race.

 

Now, I know that many will not be satisfied if I just stop here, so I will state the special union that the elect (i.e. decretaly elect) have with Christ. God sovereignly grants to the elect alone the regeneration and faith by which they infallibly possess all the benefits given to them in Christ.

Well that’s my shot at it.

Again, this just my attempt to express what may be contained within the idea of “corporate justification”, and therefore I may be way off the mark of what Pastor Wilson and other FV advocates are trying to say.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

This is part 4 of a series I started sometime ago under this same heading. Parts 1, 2, and 3 deal with a particular form of argument used by credo-baptist against paedo-baptist. It’s what I would call a “negative inference” fallacy or a categorical fallacy. This fallacy happens when the subject of premise 1 and the subject of premise 2 are in a different category and the conclusion drawn is a “negative” inference from what is “positively” affirmed to be true of the subjects of premises 1 and 2. The following simple syllogism is an illustration of this kind of fallacy:

Premise 1- Squirrels have tails.
Premise 2 - Dogs are not squirrels.
Conclusion 3 - Therefore dogs don’t have tails.

For those interested you can read the previous post by clicking on the following links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

I recently was part of a discussion that followed after the critique of a portion of the new “FV” statement by Pastor Lane Keister on his blog, Green Baggins. First I want to say that my interest here is not to defend the “FV” statement itself or the “FV” theology. My intention is to simply critique one of Pastor Keister’s arguments itself. I contend that Pastor Keister is using the same fallcious form of argument that I critiqued in parts 1, 2, and 3. The following argument, offered by Pastor Keister, is based on the Westminster Larger Catechism #65. This is the arguement as stated by Pastor Lane:

“What SPECIAL (as in exclusive) benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the **invisible** church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

This expressly says that only the elect enjoy union with Christ. The non-elect do not enjoy union with Christ. By saying that the non-elect enjoy union with Christ, the FV fudges the boundary between the elect and the non-elect, such that they have this thing in common.”

First let me say that I agree that the “special” communion/union with Christ that the “invisible” church enjoys is particular to them. That’s not the point of dispute. What I want to dispute is the inference that therefore the other class of church member, i.e. merely visible, has no “sense” of communion/union with Christ. This does not follow from the bare positive affirmation of the “special” communion/union the invisible members enjoy.

Let me illustrate this fallacy with the same example I used in “The Insistent Use of Bad Arguments” parts 1-3. Using the squirrel and the dog. In this example the squirrel is the “elect/invisible” church member, the dog is the “non-elect/merely visible” church member and the tail is “communion/union” . This is what the argument would look like:

Premise 1. Squirrels (i.e the Elect) have long very furry (i.e. special) tails (i.e. communion/union).
Premise 2. Dogs (i.e. the non-elect) are not squirrels (i.e. the elect)
Conclusion. Dogs(i.e. the non-elect) do not have tails(i.e. communion/union).

Now I think we would all agree that the fact that a dog is not a squirrel does not excludes the dog from having a tail. A squirrel has a squirrels tail and a dog has a dogs tail, but both have tails. I can’t exclude the dog from possessing every possible kind of tail simply because I’ve established that squirrels have a certain kind of tail. The same is true for the visible and invisible church member. The fact that the invisible church member enjoys a “special/invisible” kind or sense of communion/union does not exclude the visible church member from possessing a “visible” kind or sense of communion/union. Lets compare the squirrel and dog example again. The most that can be inferred from the fact that a squirrel has a tail and a dog is not a squirrel is that a dog does not have a squirrels tail. I can infer nothing about the dog and it’s having or not having a tail based on my my positive affirmation of a squirrel possessing a tail. So, the fact that WLC #65 teaches me positively that the invisible church members enjoy a “special” communion/union, I cannot infer from this that the merely visible church member is therefore excluded from all possible senses of communion/union, because, just as a dog can have a “dog” kind of tail, though it differs from a “squirrel” kind of tail, so a visible church member can have a differing “kind” or “sense” of communion/union with Christ, but a real sense of communion/union nonetheless.

Lets look at Pastor Lane’s argument again:

“What SPECIAL (as in exclusive) benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the **invisible** church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

This expressly says that only the elect enjoy union with Christ. The non-elect do not enjoy union with Christ. By saying that the non-elect enjoy union with Christ, the FV fudges the boundary between the elect and the non-elect, such that they have this thing in common.”

Again, at the risk of being redundant, the conclusion drawn here does not follow and is fallacious. The only possible inference from the explicit statement in WLC #65, is that the non-elect do not enjoy THE “special” union that the elect enjoy with Christ. WLC #65, in no way excludes the non-elect from all possible senses of communion/union altogether.

To end this post I want to offer a defense of the argument I used as an illustration earlier in this post (with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek of course). First the argument again:

Premise 1. Squirrels (i.e the Elect) have long very furry (i.e. special) tails (i.e. communion/union).
Premise 2. Dogs (i.e. the non-elect) are not squirrels (i.e. the elect)
Conclusion. Dogs(i.e. the non-elect) do not have tails(i.e. communion/union) in any sense.

And now my defense:

Now, I am going to attempt to defend this argument. You see, the tail that the squirrel has is “THE” tail by which we define what it is to be a tail. So, a dog, even though he has something that is similar to what a tail should be, yet really has no tail at all in any sense, because even though the appendage that is attach to the dogs rump, (this is also true of a Squirrels tail) is similar in almost every way to the squirrels it cannot be a tail because it is by the squirrel that a tail is defined strictly speaking.

Now after such a defense of my argument I will find it incredible if anyone reading this post is not persuaded by this unassailable argument.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it. Consequently the Church is called God’s work and creation, in two senses, i.e., generally with respect to its outward calling, and specially with respect to spiritual regeneration, as far as regards the elect; for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers. On this ground all whom God gathers into His Church, are indiscriminately said to be renewed and regenerated: but the internal renovation belongs to believers only; whom Paul, therefore, calls God’s “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath prepared, etc.” (Ephesians 2:10.).

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - Deut 32:6.

My friend David, in his comment on the previous post reminded me of a portion of Institutes 3.2.12 that I wish I would have included. In the following quote, Calvin, speaks of the reprobate being impressed with a sense of divine grace. He reference King Saul as an example of this from Saul’s knowledge of being treated with paternal kindness. I will begin the quote from where I left off in the previous post. Here is the quote:

“Meanwhile, we must remember that however feeble and slender the faith of the elect may be, yet as the Spirit of God is to them a sure earnest and seal of their adoption, the impression once engraven can never be effaced from their hearts, whereas the light which glimmers in the reprobate is afterwards quenched. Nor can it be said that the Spirit therefore deceives, because he does not quicken the seed which lies in their hearts so as to make it ever remain incorruptible as in the elect. I go farther: seeing it is evident, from the doctrine of Scripture and from daily experience, that the reprobate are occasionally impressed with a sense of divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in their hearts. Thus for a time a pious affection prevailed in Saul, disposing him to love God. Knowing that he was treated with paternal kindness, he was in some degree attracted by it. But as the reprobate have no rooted conviction of the paternal love of God, so they do not in return yield the love of sons, but are led by a kind of mercenary affection.”

A couple of things I want to emphasize is: first, Calvin is clear that even though the grace given to the “reprobate” is just temporary, yet is is still sincere and no deception on God’s part, second, Saul, who certainly was a member of the covenant (though non-elect), was treated with paternal kindness, as are all “reprobate”, but because of their own lack of conviction, i.e. unbelief, they do not respond to God as sons.

Thank you, David, for reminding me of this portion of section 12. It was a few hours between my reading and my comments on the blog. I had forgotten to add this part.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

As I was reading through a section of the Institutes of the Christian Religion today, it struck me that some comments by John Calvin on faith are relevant to the current debate over Federal Vision. One of the major points of contention, is how we are to view “non-elect” covenant members and “elect” covenant members. The question is over the idea of “union” with Christ. There is, in my opinion, as I understand both sides of the debate, no disagreement about the “elect” as being in spiritual union with Christ, possessing a true saving faith unto an infallible salvation resulting in perseverance for the “elect” of God chosen before the foundation of the world. As far as I can tell, there is no substantial disagreement between the FV proponents and the anti-FV proponents at this point. The disagreement seems to be focused on the “non-elect” covenant members and how we are to understand their “union” (if there is any union) to Christ. And by extension, is there any participation in any benefits “spiritually” by “non-elect” covenant members.

This being prefaced, I would like to post the following quotes from John Calvin taken from the Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 2, Sections 11&12. In this book and chapter, Calvin, is defining faith and it’s particular properties. What I found interesting is Calvin’s use of language to describe what is happening in the “reprobate” in regards to the operation of the Spirit in them and God’s grace in operation towards them. Now I think we can surely say that “non-elect” covenant members can be viewed as synonymous with how Calvin is using the term “reprobate” in these sections of the Institutes. He obviously has in view false professors or those who are associated with the church. I will highlight the portions that I find most thought provoking with “italicized bold print”.

11. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them.

My comments: What I find interesting here is the phrase, “temporary faith”, I would like to know how each side of the debate would view this language by Calvin and if either side would view it as appropriate. If I am understanding the FV proponents correctly, they are arguing for a sort of “temporary participation” in the covenant, and the lack of perseverance in “faith” resulting in apostasy is a demonstration of the “temporary” nature of the benefits enjoyed by the “non-elect” covenant member.

Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full
assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate.

My comments: It is interesting that Calvin here is arguing for an operation of the Spirit “in” the reprobate, certainly an inferior one, but an real operation nonetheless.

Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying
it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.

My comments: Now this last sentence is very interesting to me. Calvin is clearing speaking of a present/”temporary” mercy, but light of the statement that in this way God is showing himself “propitious” to the reprobate by manifesting this present mercy, Calvin seems to certainly imply that God is being sincere here to the reprobate in His work in them, enabling them to recognize His grace. So, my question is this, are the FV proponents arguing for more than this? And if not, would the anti-FV proponents be comfortable with this language?

In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
12. Although faith is a knowledge of the divine favor towards us, and a full persuasion of its truth, it is not strange that the sense of the divine love, which though akin to faith differs much from it, vanishes in those who are temporarily impressed. The will of God is, I confess, immutable, and his truth is always consistent with itself; but I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only. I therefore deny that they either understand his will considered as immutable, or steadily embrace his truth, inasmuch as they rest satisfied with an evanescent impression; just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit. In short, as by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished. There is nothing to prevent His giving some a slight knowledge of his Gospel, and imbuing others thoroughly.

My concluding comments: The analogy of the tree I believe is so apt to this debate. Here we have a tree that bears fruit, though temporarily, and is easily mistaken for a well planted tree, and only a long period of perseverance can prove which tree is the “good” one. This tree that only bears fruit for a temporary time, does so within the context of the covenant and the operation of the Spirit. Certainly the operation of the Spirit is different in “quality” in the “non-elect” as opposed to the “elect” but both operations of grace take place within the institution in which God shows Himself “propitious” towards men, i.e. the Church.

I would love to see those on both sides of this debate comment on the language used here by Calvin, and how each side would accommodate it in light of how they believe we should view the “non-elect” covenant member.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

Mal 4:6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

There have been many doctrinal shifts in the “protestant/evangelical” church since the time of the reformation. The church for the most part following the reformation was confessional and covenantal in doctrine. The emphasis of the reformed confessions are on God as the God of covenant promise and the covenant family is seen, in covenant theology, as being at the center of God’s historic redemptive plan. The covenant family, as a subset of the larger church/covenant “community”, is emphasized as the primary means God has used to save his people. This emphasis provides, historically, a strong foundation for healthy and godly families. The question is, with the shift in the “church”, over the years following the reformation, from this covenantal and reformed foundation to a revivalistic and individualistic emphasis, is it suprising to us that as a result we have the deterioration of the family unit? This deterioration is just a rampant in the church as in the world. I don’t know if one can statistically prove that there is a connection between an emphasis on covenant theology and strong covenant families by compiling historical data, but it does seem to me, as one that was raised in a revivalistic/individualistic religious environment, that a return by the “evangelical” church to it’s covenantal roots would again provide a strong foundation for the covenant family and produce the godly seed that is promised in the new covenant.

Blessings in Christ,

Terry W. West

Ecclesiastes 12:1-4, “1. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2. While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3. In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened, 4. And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low. 5. Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6. Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.”

In the text above, the Preacher, describes for us the importance of being taught the truths of our Creator from our youth. The word “remember” in this text means to “call to mind” or to be “mindful of”, it can also be rendered “record”. The obvious inference is that for one to “remember” something they must have previous knowledge of it, or in others words, been taught.

Children raised in a covenant home, are taught about God from their earliest years when parents are faithful to their covenant responsibilities. As a result they will be equip to face the challenges of life, they will have been taught that God is sovereign and that He providentially rules of all things. This glorious knowledge provides grounds for joy in the middle of trouble, peace in the middle of the storm, and thanksgiving for the mercies of God.

In contrast, the text describes for us the plight of those who remember not these truths, those who are unable to call these to mind. Their lives are characterized with displeasure and fear, they have no joy nor peace of mind. They have no stability in the day of trouble. The text describes for us the the fear and uncertainty when the day that is dreaded most of all approaches. When we are faced with death. For those without God have no hope beyond the grave, they have nothing but fear.

For the covenant child, who as been brought to believe and trust in God, he has the hope of covenant promise, and can face this day with peace and assurance. For he/she has been taught, as David records in Psalm 39, man’s frailty, that the days of every man are measured and in God’s hand, that man in his best state is vanity and that his/her hope is in God alone.

Psalm 39:4-5, “4. Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is: that I may know how frail I am. 5. Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah. 6. Surely every man walketh in a vain shew: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. 7. And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee.”

Blessings in Christ,

Terry W. West

Malachi 2:13-17, 13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 “For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”

In this passage God declares divorce an act of violence against the marriage covenant, an act of violence against his eternal purposes. For in this passage we find that the purpose for the covenant family is to produce a godly offspring. The covenant family in God’s covenantal economy is of central importance. We find this same emphasis in the new testament as well. Notice the order Peter uses in his declaration of God’s promise in Acts 2:39: “…For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

May we as fathers and mothers learn this truth and pray that by God’s grace our families will, for God’s glory, be used as a covenant means through which his redemptive plan is accomplished in the earth.

My God, my blessed triune God, I pray that by your grace my family, which you have been pleased to give to me, may begin a long legacy of covenant families, that your gracous promise in Christ may be granted to my children and to their children and to their children’s children and to as many as you, Oh Sovereign God, are pleased to call. Amen

Blessings In Christ,

Terry W. West