Merit & the Covenant of Works

“Not grace but simple justice was the governing principle in the pre-fall covenant…” (Kline, "Covenant Theology under Attack"). These words of Meredith Kline have become rather important in the current debate in Reformed circles over the covenant of works. Rightly or wrongly, Kline’s opponents have taken him to mean that man as man is able to merit by his obedience eternal life from God. This is what Lusk attacks in Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons (121). Shepherd also hints at Kline’s statement when he explains the traditional doctrine of the covenant works, “It is a matter of simple justice to reward perfect obedience with eternal life” (Call of Grace, 26). The Federal Vision (FV), Shepherd, some Canadian Reformed theologians, and a host of others reject this idea that man as such could merit eternal life from God and, on that basis, the covenant of works.

Their reasoning is as follows. Since the creature owes all obedience to God, and since there is an infinite distance between God and man; therefore, man’s obedience cannot merit anything from God. As Lusk writes, “The creature is indebted to the Creator for his very existence; the creature can never indebt the Creator, no matter how much he serves or obeys” (Auburn Avenue, 121-122). In other words, since man owes God everything, man can never make a claim on God. Consequently, Lusk, Shepherd, and many others reject the idea of a covenant of works.

The problem with this is that they have not really rejected the covenant of works. They have rejected the idea of merit in the covenant of works, but so did the classic Reformed theologians. Thus, Francis Turretin writes, “Hence also it appears that there is no merit properly so-called of man before God, in whatever state he is placed. Thus Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice…” (Institutes, XVII:v.7). This is clearly the doctrine of the Reformed confessions. The Westminster Confession of Faith says that man “could never have any fruition of [God] as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension” (7.1). The Formula Consensus Helvetica states that God “in this covenant freely promised [Adam] communion with God, favor, and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to his will” (emphasis mine, Canon 7). Whatever “different theologians” might have said, they agreed that this reward of eternal life was not a matter of simple justice.

The relation of man’s works to the promised blessing in the pre-fall covenant demonstrates God’s benevolence, goodness, and even grace (if defined as unmerited favor). The covenant of works, in the view of the Reformed, is about God saying, “You owe me all obedience anyway, but I will bless your obedience to Me with eternal life.” Consider Benedict Pictet in his very helpful summary of theology:

It is true that, speaking strictly, there cannot be any covenant between God and man, because there is no proportion between God and man, and between the goodness of the one, and the duty of the other; because also man is bound without any covenant to pay obedience to God, and is not able of himself to contribute anything towards it; nor does God owe anything to His creature, or in any way have need of His creature. But God, under the influence of pure kindness, was pleased by means of a covenant, to invite into communion with himself, and by this bond of love and mutual agreement, more effectually to win over his creature, who was already subject, and owed everything to him” (Christian Theology).

From all of this we must conclude that on this point, the proponents of FV are not really attacking the traditional doctrine of the covenant of works.

However, there remains a problem. The proponents of FV generally do think they are rejecting the covenant of works. They think that they have found a tertium quid (third thing) that is different from the Reformed doctrines of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In their view, the structure of this covenant can apply equally to pre-fall Adam, Christ, and Christians. As Lusk says, “Each covenant renewal maintains this fundamental structure” (Auburn Avenue, 123). Consequently, Shepherd can speak of the structure of the covenant by saying that pre-fall Adam was justified by faith, Christ was justified by faith, and we are justified by faith. The fundamental structure of justification is always the same. The problem is that they have not found a new structure that can equally fit the pre-fall and the post-fall situation. They have simply made the classic Reformed structure of the covenant of works the basis for all of God’s covenants with man.

Turning back to the Reformed view, some may wonder where all this places the active obedience of Jesus Christ in our justification. In answer to that question, we note that while Adam’s obedience was not inherently meritorious of eternal life, it was certainly an absolutely necessary condition of obtaining eternal life. Any sin makes man inherently worthy (meritorious) of hell (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 6:23). Consequently, God could not propose to Adam eternal life on any other condition than perfect and perpetual obedience. This is obvious from the actual turn of events. Adam did sin, and then he was excluded from life and subject to death.

Once God had set before man eternal life on the condition of perfect and perpetual obedience, He could not set it aside. The conditions of man’s covenant cannot be set aside, how much less can God’s covenant (Gal. 3:15)? Moreover, God’s justice demands that the condition be fulfilled before He would grant man life. Man owed God obedience in order to gain life, and we must always give to God what we owe Him on the basis of the Creator-creature relationship.

Consequently, we have two very different things here. On the one hand, there was a covenant in which man owed to God perfect obedience as the condition for obtaining life, and, on the other side, man had to receive death from God because of his sin. Christ paid for both by His perfect obedience and suffering. By His suffering, He suffered man’s punishment. By His obedience, He fulfilled the broken condition of the covenant of works. This is precisely what is stated in Romans 5, “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (v. 18, NASB). Some object to the use of this passage that it refers to “one righteous act” which refers to the cross, not His obedience. We respond as follows. First, “righteous act” refers primarily to obedience not suffering. Second, it is called “one act” for symmetry with the “one act” of Adam. Third, both the suffering of Christ and the obedience of Christ endured throughout His life and culminated in the cross. Fourth, the tree (cross) was the great test of obedience for Christ, just as the tree was the great test of obedience for Adam.

Even though there is a parallel between Adam and Christ, the parallel is not exact. This is expressed by the “how much more” statements of Romans 5. Whereas Adam could not strictly-speaking merit eternal life, Christ could. Whereas Adam owed all obedience to God, Christ had no obligation to become a man and take up the obligations of obedience as a man. Consequently, His work is inherently meritorious. Christ did not strictly-speaking owe obedience to God as man, and therefore His work was meritorious. Christ’s obedience merited eternal life by merit in the strict sense. This is a part of the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whoever believes in Jesus Christ not only will not be condemned but also has eternal life simply on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ.