Contract

A covenant is a contract. This statement should not be controversial, but I have seen a few objections to it. “Contract” is a broad word. There are contracts that entail serious commitments and severe consequences, and there are contracts that are trivial in comparison. In fact, the word “covenant” is also broad, and it can refer to anything from an apartment rental to an eternal bond. So a covenant is a contract, and a contract is a covenant. The word “contract” can accommodate any meaning that the word “covenant” intends to convey. To ascertain what kind of contract it is, we need to examine the terms of the contract, or what the contract says. If we wish to restrict the meaning of “covenant” in the context of theology, we may say that it is a specific kind of contract. In any case, “contract” is a broad word, and whether we say “contract” or “covenant,” it is not meaningful enough until we know the terms of the contract.

One theologian makes the objection that the word “contract” is too weak. Again, the word itself is broad. The terms of the contract can be strong, and the way it is made can be very graphic. Suppose someone forms a contract with the devil. Even without knowing the terms of the contract, the notion is immediately jarring. The nature of the contract partner makes the contract notable. Let us use a seemingly weaker word, and say “agreement” instead. Let us make it even weaker, and say “understanding.” If someone has an “understanding” with the devil, we would still not think it is weak, would we? Would this theologian think that it is trivial to make a contract with the devil? We would regard it as something horrid, perhaps the worst thing that a human being can do. A person who makes a contract with the devil commits himself to wickedness and damnation. But what if a person makes a contract with God? You see, it is not that the word “contract” is weak, but it is because people have become insensitive to the notion of God. To them, the devil is a more colorful character. Like others of his kind, this theologian is more invested in his academic obsession with “covenant” than with God himself. The word “contract” is broad. How strong it is depends on the terms of the contract, how it is made, and with whom it is made.

Righteousness is intelligible in itself. We can understand light without darkness, and we can understand love without hate. However, do not be alarmed that we could use something from the realm of evil to illustrate our point. As Paul said to the Corinthians, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols.” A contract with the devil is in reality an imitation of a contract with God. Men who are bent toward evil make agreements with the devil in exchange for their souls, so that they may obtain power, money, or things that they consider advantages over others. This is a counterfeit and a perversion of God’s way of doing things. God offers his contract for assurance, but Satan offers his contract to enslave and destroy people. People are born sinners, and they encounter wickedness first. When they come into the realm of faith, we can use their former life to tell them, “Remember this? It was a perversion of what God had instituted, and Satan offered it to you in order to deceive and destroy you. Now you can receive the genuine and the perfect through Jesus Christ.” This approach also enables us to communicate with the members of self-proclaimed orthodoxy who, because of their unbelief, worldliness, and man-made doctrines and traditions, usually have a strong affinity to the things of Satan and no sensitivity to the things of God. Theologians who teach about the covenant often cheapen it into something even less than a demonic covenant, but our covenant with God is stronger than any occult agreement, just as God is stronger than Satan. In our covenant, there is no deception, but only blessing and assurance.

Another objection is that a contract implies negotiation and agreement, and this appears to undermine the sovereignty of God. A covenant between God and men is not seen as an agreement between equal parties, but it is like one between a suzerain and a vassal, in which the greater promises his support and protection, while he imposes his terms upon the lesser. However, this is still a contract. The word “contract” can accommodate all of this, because the word is broad, and we only need to specify what kind of contract we have in mind. Even the word “covenant” does not necessarily refer to this kind of contract between a suzerain and a vassal, and we would still need to specify what kind of covenant we have in mind. For example, a covenant of marriage is not one between a suzerain and a vassal, but it is still called a covenant. Just throwing the word “covenant” around does not really do anything, until you describe what is in the covenant. Theologians are foolish to attach pious implications to the word “covenant” itself. Whether we use the word “covenant” or “contract” in discussing our relationship with God, we would never reduce it to the level of a human covenant or contract, so there is no point to the objection.

Moreover, this traditional assumption about the covenant as one that is between a suzerain and a vassal is not entirely applicable. Christians have a covenant with God through a chief and mediator, Jesus Christ, and Christ is not a mere vassal. As Scripture says, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'” When God addresses our covenant head, it is God speaking to God. This is basic Christology and Soteriology. How can self-proclaimed experts in the covenant do not grasp this painfully obvious point? Their incompetence boggles the mind. Then they talk about “covenant theology” as if they own the thing. Huh.

Although you may have never heard of these objections, I wanted to mention them to make us think about these issues, that we have a covenant with God, and that this means we have a contract with him. There are reasons to use the word “contract.” The pious obsession with the mere word or idea of “covenant” is counterproductive, and it often becomes a substitute for a true understanding of the nature and content of the covenant. Most people who are very taken up with “covenant” play around with it academically and religiously, but they do not know what it means, and they do not benefit from the covenant. The word has been so overused, and used only for theoretical and heuristic purposes, that it has been drained of life. On the other hand, although the word “contract” is more common in everyday speech, when used in a spiritual context, it is vivid, graphic, even jarring. This is what we need to remind us that the covenant is a contract, and it is supposed to evoke a sense of action and power. It is supposed to define entire peoples and realms. The word “covenant” is biblical and accurate, but so is the word “contract,” and sometimes it helps to use a similar word, in order to remind us what it is that we are talking about.

 

Ritualism

Some theologians consider the covenant so crucial that they call their system “covenant theology,” but their doctrine of the covenant deviates from the biblical doctrine on numerous points. In fact, their overall theology is often blatantly against what the biblical covenant guarantees to God’s people. This makes them enemies of the covenant. The covenant is a pillar in their theology, but their theology consists of a combination of several biblical ideas and many man-made beliefs and traditions. The covenant is an academic device to them. It functions as a principle or framework for them to facilitate the interpretation of Scripture and the formulation of doctrines, especially their own biases. For example, they would apply the covenant to theories about water baptism. They would leverage their claims about the covenant to argue for what they wish to conclude about baptism. However, they still end up with a defective doctrine, and their baptism has no effect. It remains a mere ritual. They are not doers of the word of God. They preach about the covenant, but they live as people without a covenant. They would refer to it as something strong in principle, but they would restrict its effects and benefits, and they would live as if it is something immaterial. They would preach about their adoption, but they live as orphans.

Their focus on rituals that are supposedly associated with the covenant, such as baptism and communion, becomes an excuse to reject faith and obedience toward the covenant. Like the Jews whose zeal toward man-made tradition, circumcision, and the Sabbath obscured their defiance against the weightier laws of God on faith, mercy, and justice, the defenders of historic orthodoxy use their zeal toward rituals to make an outward display of piety, when on the inside they are full of unbelief, malice, and death. If someone makes a commotion about the exact shape and weight and color and price and flavor of the tiny crackers used for communion, he might impress unspiritual people into thinking that he really cares about God, and no one will notice that he is an unbeliever who commits adultery and embezzles funds. If he debates everybody – from his pastor to his friends to his mother to his dog, and then other people’s pastors and friends and mothers and dogs – about the correct age and height and weight and smell and race and lineage of a candidate for water baptism, and whether it is done by sprinkling or immersion, and if by sprinkling, on how many drops of filtered or unfiltered water to be sprinkled by washed or unwashed hands, and if hands that are washed by soap then whether with or without disinfectant or coloring, and if by immersion, on what kind of robe he needs to use, if any, on whether he should wear underwear, on how many seconds the person needs to remain under water, on whether he needs to show the first signs of drowning to display his dedication, and a hundred of other things, then he might deceive people into thinking that he is truly concerned about obedience to the gospel, and no one will notice that he never heals the sick and casts out demons, because he does not have even the smallest faith for the things demonstrated by some believers who would begin to do them on the first day of their conversion.

They argue about the smallest details, and if they are not small enough, they will invent even smaller problems to argue about, so that amidst the chaos they may shove God entirely out of the picture. Jesus said that these people would strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. They would incite a worldwide controversy about how many grams of sugar God permits you to put into your coffee, and whether the amount is different on the Sabbath, so that no one would notice when they commit murder in broad daylight by undermining those who lay hands on the sick in the name of Jesus. They do not care about God and the gospel, but they want people to think that they care about these things. This is the way of the religious hypocrites, and churches and seminaries are overflowing with them. People like these are widespread and numerous, not rare exceptions. God prefers mercy, not sacrifice. He loves faith, not rituals. If someone has no faith for things like miracles of healing, but he seems zealous for rituals like baptism and communion, then we must conclude that his zeal is false, and he is putting up a performance to distract other people, perhaps even to distract his own conscience, from his lack of piety and lack of faith. Christians who continue to exalt people like these perpetuate this kind of behavior, and become complicit in the unbelief and hypocrisy. Instead of making them into religious celebrities, people like these must be condemned and despised.

Ritualism is the religion of the flesh. It will appear wherever people prefer control and appearance rather than faith, mercy, and justice. If it is not eradicated from the heart, one might slip back into it. Thus in recent years, some of those who have supported the ministry of healing began to introduce it under the umbrella of baptism and communion. This supposedly offers people a way to receive things that are available to them through rituals that remind them of what Christ has done for them, but in reality it makes people turn from Jesus Christ and God’s word to fleshly activities and material substances. It diverts their faith away from the proper objects. It makes them jump through more hoops to attain what they could easily experience by faith alone, without the use of any ceremony or substance. Presenting healing under baptism and communion would attract much interest, because carnal people prefer ritual over faith, but such an approach disguises and even honors a religion of the flesh. Would the people receive healing? If there is any faith remaining toward the word of God, although it has been sidelined, then some of the people would still receive, perhaps even many of them – it is easy for miracles of healing to happen – but the credit then goes toward the rituals, confirming the people in this religion of the flesh. This would make it increasingly difficult for the people to receive healing and other things from God in the long run, because it exalts the flesh and diminishes faith. Thus in the guise of honoring the work of Christ, this approach does a disservice to the gospel. It dooms those it claims to help.

The people have a grotesque obsession with the idea of covenant, but this does not lead them to a correct doctrine of the covenant, and it does not lead them to live according to the covenant. We will not be like this. We will take this sacred contract as God teaches it to us, and it will have spiritual and material effects in our lives. This contract with God determines our identity, our focus, our destiny, our health, our wealth, our confidence, our relationships, and everything in our lives. Jesus said that a descendant of Abraham ought to be free from her sickness, and he said that the miracle of healing is as an ordinary meal to the children of the covenant. Many people use the covenant to argue about the how and the when and the who of water baptism, or some such thing, but then the covenant never becomes a vital power in their lives. For all their talk about baptism, water baptism does nothing in their lives. Their actual baptism is in how the incessant discussions and controversies wash over them and cleanse them from an awareness of how spiritually feeble and useless they are. If we understand water baptism correctly, then we will see it as a mere symbol of the cleansing of our conscience and the resurrection of our spirits. It can only reflect a reality that happens by faith in Jesus alone with or without the baptism. We will look to the reality instead of the symbol. We will never preach as if we are sinners again. We will have such confidence, and we will feel so right before God and the world, that we will chase away cancer with a wave of the hand. The water and the ritual can never do this, and for most people who are obsessed with baptism, water and ritual are all that they have. Faith in the contract is what enables us to live in the reality of it.

 

Romance

There are many things that we can say about the terms of the contract, but one statement deserves special attention. God said, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.” He confirmed this by a contract. He will be our God forever, and forever, we will be his people. We are not alone in life. We have a contract with God. No one can tear us apart. No thing can separate us from his love. No power can prevent him from saving us, healing us, blessing us. God is for us. We are for God. This is an unbreakable relationship. An unbreakable commitment. We have a contract with Deity. The only God. The Supreme Spirit. The All-Wisdom. The All-Power. We consider the notion of signing a contract with the devil as grotesque, even though it could secure tremendous strength, wealth, and power to dominate. Do we think that a contract with God is less life-changing? Why, it ought to upset the balance of the world. If a contract with Satan is the basis for ultimate wickedness and devastation, a contract with God is much more the basis for ultimate power, ultimate healing, ultimate prosperity, ultimate blessing and righteousness. In a blood contract, Deity pledges all his resources to the Christian, and the Christian pledges all his trust and service.

God said, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.” We don’t have another God. We don’t have another one to care for us, to defend us, to bless us, to heal us, to prosper us, and to guide us. Satan wishes to weaken us through counterfeit piety by convincing us that although we should render all our powers to serve God, we should not expect him to supply all his riches to us, because that would be selfish, unspiritual, man-centered, or some such thing. This is absurd, and it goes against what it means to have a contract with God. He said, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.” He is our God. He is the only God, and our only God. When we want something, if we do not expect it from God, who are we supposed to get it from? Are we supposed to get it from Satan? Our contract is with God, not with the devil. Are we supposed to get it by ourselves? But to strive by the strength of the flesh is the very model of carnality and man-centered religion. We see people who speak against expecting healing and prosperity from God, and then they strive for these same things by their own strength. They act as if they have no God, and no contract with him. But he is our God. If we are going to worship anyone, we will worship him. If we are going to pray to anyone, we will pray to him. If we will obtain any salvation and happiness, and any health and wealth, we will go to him. This is true piety, when we act like he is God.

Look at this from the other perspective. We are his people. If he is not going to bless us, who is he going to bless? If he is not going to heal us, who is he going to heal? If he is not going to make us rich, who is he going to make rich? As it is written, “The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it.” Why does the Bible contain this statement and hundreds of others like it? Has man-centered theology infiltrated Scripture, or is traditional religious thinking total rubbish? The orthodoxy of man has made God into a heretic. There is a vast difference between a contract with Satan that brings wealth, and a contract with God that brings wealth. Wealth from Satan is a trap, but wealth from God is a gift. We are his people. If he is not going to fill us with his power, what is he going to do with it? If he will not let us experience his gifts and miracles, why talk about them in the Bible? We are his people. We are his treasure. He wanted the contract. He dictated the terms. He decided that it would be this way. He is not reluctant. He is eager to fulfill it. No one cheated him. No one manipulated him. We did not force ourselves upon him. He is the one who said, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.” Will he lavish all his riches and powers on his enemies? Never! If he is going to provide the things that we see on this earth, we are the ones who will obtain them. If he is going to do good to anyone, we are the ones who will benefit. If he is going to do the things that he says in his word, then we are the ones who will receive the fulfillment. We are his people.

A formal contract does not necessarily hinder romance and intimacy in a relationship. Certainly, it does not replace love, because it is out of love that God established the contract with us, and we know that he loves us because he offers us this contract of salvation and blessing. The contract is a revelation of his love. Marriage is also a contract. It does not stifle love but rather ensures its unfettered development. The man offers the woman a formal vow, holding nothing back. The woman offers the man a formal vow, holding nothing back. The two vow to enter into an exclusive relationship and renounce all others. It gives the relationship a permanent basis. Success is guaranteed as long as the two remain true to the contract. Likewise, our relationship with God is not a casual friendship or a temporary alliance, but it is defined and secured by an eternal contract, signed by the blood of Jesus. Both sides declare the intention to invest everything into the relationship, forever. Far from stifling love, romance, and intimacy, our contract with God provides assurance, protection, and makes room for limitless growth and fellowship.

Why did God contractually commit himself to us? Why did he make a formal declaration, signed in blood, to save, to heal, to guide, to protect, and to prosper his people? He is God, and he can do whatever he wants. Why doesn’t he just do good things for us whenever he feels like it? Couldn’t he accomplish the same things without a covenant? He wants to give us a consistent basis for faith. It is true that the will of God is easy to discern. Even without a formal contract, it is still possible to know what we can expect from God. As we fellowship with him, and as he reveals himself to us, we would come to know his abilities and tendencies. We would, for example, understand that he is a God who forgives our sins and heals the sick. However, without a contract, it leaves room for us to think that he would decide what happens on a case-by-case basis, and we would not know what he decides until it happens. But God wants us to be sure what he would do as we come to him. He doesn’t want us to approach him with a hit-or-miss attitude. He doesn’t want us to think of prayer as a gamble, as a rolling of the dice. As the Bible says, “He who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.” He wants us to know that he will surely reward, instead of thinking that he will possibly reward, but might not. He wants us to be sure about what he would do, and to instantly reach that place of certainty. Any new believer from a culture of blood covenants, if we can convince him that the Supreme Spirit has indeed offered him a contract, could bypass centuries of fruitless theological gibberish and reach the place of total certainty in less than one second. He would be frighteningly powerful. He would be unstoppable. He would be a monster of faith.

God wants to relate to us through faith, and the stronger the faith, the better. Certainty is good. Faith is strong where there is a consistent foundation, a basis for confidence. As the Bible says, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘Surely I will bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” God had made a promise to Abraham. He would have fulfilled it if there was nothing more, but he confirmed it with an oath. Why? “To show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose.” He made a promise, so of course he intended what he had promised, or he would not have made the promise. But he added an oath to show more convincingly that he meant what he said. This is intended to convince us that we would inherit this promise, and God would do this for us and see it through. The text calls it an “anchor of the soul.” This is what we mean. Our contract with God is our anchor. If we will devote our thoughts on this sacred contract, our faith will be immovable. We will not say one thing today, and something else tomorrow. We will not act one way this week, and a different way next week.

Return to the marriage covenant. The man and the woman decide to commit themselves to each other. They express the intention, but also seal it with a formal contract. Now they are free to invest all that they have and all that they are into this relationship. When they receive a blessing, the husband never has to wonder if the wife would share it with him. They belong to each other. When they face a decision, the wife never has to wonder if the husband will put her first. Even the children are secondary, because this covenant is made with the spouse, and only the spouse. Parents, children, friends, and even brothers and sisters in Christ have no part in this covenant. They have committed themselves to each other. When one has love to give, he or she never has to worry if it would be wasted. The contract carves out an exclusive place for the two of them out of all the relationships in the world, and within this space, love is developed and reciprocated. When there is a conflict, or something that could challenge the harmony, there is no chance that the marriage would be terminated, and that the two will walk their separate ways. The contract is permanent. It is a guarantee, an anchor of the soul. Even when negative feelings flare up, the contract is unaffected, and the two are anchored in place to resolve their problems within the context of the covenant. There is no going in and out of it. The contract becomes their entire world. Of course, this assumes that the two understand the contract of marriage and respect it the way they should. This is often not the case, because people are sinful and ignorant, and because the church has invented loopholes to supposedly dissolve the marriage covenant, but in reality throw all the people involved into the sin of adultery. However, those who have been born again into the family of God and taught the sacred contract we have with God will also apply the same principles to the covenant of marriage. The covenant of marriage is made more sure when it is established and understood under the covenant we have with God.

The things we have said regarding the covenant of marriage illustrate the covenant we have with God. We never have to wonder if God will share his resources with us. We never have to wonder if he will put us first. He who did not spare his own Son, but offered him up to save us, will he not also freely give us all things? We never have to worry if his love will be wasted on us, or if our love will be wasted on him. We never need to think that this thing or that thing will tear us apart, and cause us to walk our separate ways. It is written that nothing will separate us from the love of God. Even when there are problems to resolve, it is nobody’s business but ours. We will always resolve our problems with God, because the relationship is guaranteed by formal contract. We are in our own world with God. We have no one else to be our God, and he has no one else to be his people. This contract remains intact regardless of emotions and feelings, regardless of circumstances, regardless of momentary confusion, regardless of our performance. You say, “God is faithful, but we are weak. Doesn’t this mean that the covenant could be destroyed because of our failures?” However, the covenant is made between God and the Seed, not seeds as in many, but seed, as in Christ, and we become members of the covenant in Christ. As the God-man, Christ will never fail, and thus he guarantees our side of the covenant. The contract keeps our mind stable in the face of turbulence and opposition, and in the face of inciting words from our enemies intended to cause division. It maintains our priorities also in the midst of happiness and abundance, so that we will never forget God, just as he will never forget about us. He does not need a contract to keep him honest, but it is given for our sake. Our contract with God is an anchor of the soul. We are bold and happy to throw ourselves into this faith and this relationship.

 

Status

A covenant brings two parties into a special relationship, but by doing this, it also draws a line that excludes everyone else, and defines everyone not in this relationship as an outsider. It divides the whole world into two groups. This covenant confers a formal status on an insider to face those who are outside of this relationship. The person becomes an ambassador of the covenant. Again, take marriage as an example. Once a woman marries a man, she receives formal status as the wife of that man. She is no longer just an acquaintance or a friend, but a member of this new family unit. She is authorized to present herself as a member of the family, whether she is addressing individuals, groups, the government, or God. She is authorized to act in the name of the family, to sign documents, to accept or reject offers, and to perform many functions proper to her status. She also has the power to inherit the resources of her family. Of course, this is also true for the man, who by marriage has become a member of the new family unit. A covenant is not only a formal declaration of who we are to each other, but also a formal declaration of this relationship to outsiders. A married person has a formal basis to reject all suitors, in addition to any personal reasons. All of this is true when we have a covenant with God. We have a formal status as his children. We are the ambassadors of Christ. We are agents of the kingdom of God.

This formal status is fundamental to the work of the gospel. For who are we to speak for God? But we have a covenant with God. A wife has the right to speak for her husband, and a husband has the right to speak for his wife. So it is with our contract with God. We are insiders of his kingdom. We have the commission to declare God’s message to the world. The covenant confers upon us the authority to challenge outsiders in the name of God. We have the authority to rebuke them for their sins, to expose their errors and delusions, and to command them to repent. We have the authority to invite them to leave their current condition and enter into a contract with God. A stranger or even a friend would not have the authority to invite someone into my home, but a covenant partner who has a formal status with me would have that right. We can say to someone, “I come to you with a message from my contracted Master and Father. I am authorized to inform you that if you will turn from your sins and follow Jesus Christ, you will be welcomed into the family of God.” We have the authority to speak for our God. We have the authority to even guarantee membership in the family to someone who would comply. We are not simply pets, but we are his contract partners. We are authorized to declare his terms to the world.

A contract creates a world of its own. Regardless of what the rules are on the outside, a contract defines its own rules. A stranger has no right to take from your possessions whenever he wishes. He would get something from you only when you sovereignly offer him something, probably on a case-by-case basis. But if you sign a formal document stating that he has a right to take from you whatever he wants, and whenever he wants, that would be a contract. Now this person is no longer a stranger like any other outsider, but he is an insider to a contract that you have with him. It is a special relationship, and he has a formal status. The rules that apply to everyone else no longer apply to him. He lives by a different set of rules. He might continue to live as one without a contract, and fail to take advantage of what he has a right to receive, but he could walk by this different set of rules at any time just by acting on the terms of the contract. The contract creates a world of its own. Now he is still in the world, but he is not of the world.

 

Guarantee

All of this is true by the very definition of covenant, but I have never seen it explained like this, not even by those who are familiar with the operations of faith and power. The ones who present themselves as experts in the theology of the covenant are usually the ones who know the least about the covenant from this perspective. Their theology is usually the most contrary to what it means to have a covenant. To use marriage as an example again, whenever my wife asks for me she does not have to wonder if I would support her in that instance. Whenever we meet someone she does not have to wonder if I would prefer him or her over my wife this time. The act of forming the marriage covenant meant that, by this one motion, I had decided how I would treat her in every case in the future. If I had intended that I would decide how to treat her on a case-by-case basis, or on a day-by-day basis, I would not have formed the covenant, because it would be meaningless, and in fact there would be no actual covenant. It would be a contract that carries no terms, no conditions, and no promises. There would be no contract. So-called “covenant theology” has without exception affirmed the covenant on the one hand (nevertheless, only an academic and heuristic, man-made version), and in the very next breath nullified it by their false application of the sovereignty of God, as if God continues to decide on a case-by-case basis regardless of what the covenant says. The result is that “covenant theology” is the least covenantal of any account of the theology of the covenant, because the outcome is the destruction of the covenant.

The very point of a contract is to prevent decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. The very reason for it is to declare the will of each party for future events. There is no need for a contract if one can discover the will of another only by observing what the other person does in each instance. By definition, a contract guarantees that one would know what the other person will do before he does it. From this perspective, even the “pinky promise” doctrine from children is far superior to the covenant theology of the creeds and scholars. Children know what a promise means. Even children know that to decide on a case-by-case basis after a promise has been made does not make one the honorable sovereign, but a LIAR – pants on fire. A theology of covenant that uses divine sovereignty as an excuse to nullify the covenant makes God into a liar. The trash-grade preachers and theologians ought to be embarrassed to be associated with the term, because their theology exposes the fact that they have no covenant, that they do not believe they have a covenant, and that they do not live as if they have a covenant.

Ask some kids what a pinky promise means. There used to be some of them that took it more seriously and cut their fingers as they made the promise. There is your covenant. You have instantly gained more useful understanding than the combination of multiple streams of “covenant theology” developed over multiple centuries. Now imagine God made such a pact with you, promising you diplomatic status, endless and divine life, supernatural insights and powers, and all his resources both in this life and in the life to come, only that instead of cutting his little finger, he cut up his own Son. He made his Son into a man and drained all his blood as he made this oath to you. There is your gospel. And then the “covenant” theologian tells you, “Well…you know…he might not answer this prayer because he is sovereign.” What?! Then why did he write the contract?! Wasn’t he sovereign when he signed it? No one forced him. If he was going to decide on what he would do on a case-by-case basis, such as your protection and happiness in this life, or your healing and prosperity, he could have done it without all this trouble, without all this bloodshed. We would be in that exact situation without the covenant.

The so-called “covenant theology” that exploits divine sovereignty to destroy the element of covenantal guarantee blasphemes the blood of Christ. It is the greatest enemy to the covenant, because it portrays the whole thing as fraudulent and meaningless. Cults that teach cessationism, that undermine God’s promises regarding faith, prayer, healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, prosperity, the baptism of the Spirit for supernatural endowments, and that undermine his promises regarding various miracles whether with or without the gifts of the Spirit, all fall under this condemnation. They are always saying covenant this or covenant that, but there is never any covenant remaining by the time they are finished. Covenant theology? Where is the world-shaking ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons? That is covenant theology. Covenant apologetics? Where is the spirit of prophecy, by which the defender of the faith can form arguments he has never learned as well as expose the secrets of those who resist? That is covenant apologetics. But their teachings oppose these things and a thousand others that are in the contract.

They are enemies of the covenant, because they insinuate themselves into the family in order to spread suspicion within the household about the contract, even portraying the Father as a sovereign covenant-breaker – much inferior to a child who remembers his “pinky promise” to a friend. They pretend to be uncles and tutors in the family, but in reality they are deviants that molest our babies with their propaganda. They are religious predators. Their writings are demonic literature. Their classrooms are prisons. Their churches are dungeons of perversion. Scoundrels like these must be disowned by the family and condemned with the most bitter curses. Under Moses, these people should have been executed, but they have many followers in our churches who prefer them instead of the word of God. Church members worship them as doctors and reverends, but what will they do when judgment comes? Unbelief will end in violence and damnation. As the Scripture says, “An appalling, horrible thing has taken place in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own authority. My people love it like this. But what will you do at the end of it?”

 

Reality

Our contract with God creates a world of its own. The effects are more powerful than any human contract. A human contract indeed creates a world within a world, but its rules are still limited to the same possibilities, only they make a specific application of these possibilities. On the other hand, a contract with God creates a world of its own under God, so that the terms of this contract make an application of God’s possibilities. Thus our contract with God overrides even the rules of physics, biology, sin and death – the spiritual and natural laws that apply to outsiders. We live by a different set of rules. For the outsiders, when there is a drought, the crops die. This is natural law. But because we have a contract with God, we can have the greatest harvest in the middle of the gravest famine. We hear about the spread of diseases, but our contract states that Jesus took our infirmities and carried our sicknesses, so we walk in the law of life instead of the law of death. For the outsiders, when a disease spreads in the world, then a disease results in their bodies. This does not have to be true for us. We can even heal the sick by merely touching them or speaking to them. The unbeliever has no such law in their physics and biology.

The law of spirit and life has set us free from the law of sin and death. The unbelievers live in the law of sin and death. They are constantly suffering the effects of sin, constantly in the process of decay. The longer they live, the worse they become. The effects of sin continue to erode them, resulting in sickness, poverty, fear, hatred, immorality, and the like. They become sad and bitter, and full of regrets. We don’t have to live like that. We can live by a different law, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The longer we live, the better, stronger, younger, wiser, richer, happier we become. We live in a different reality. We are in this world, but not of this world. We occupy the same physical space, but we live by a different set of rules. Thus we think about reality differently. This is what it means to have faith.

Most people who talk about the covenant make it into an academic thing only. It is a mere heuristic principle in their worldview. It is nothing more than a framework for them to interpret the Bible or to formulate their theology. It’s all talk, talk, talk. And they don’t even talk about it correctly. They do not talk about the contract as if it is truly a contract. They don’t expect God to do anything on the basis of the covenant. Or, they claim that God would only do “spiritual” things, because this allows them to hide the fact that they are not members of the covenant, so that God does nothing for them. They don’t invoke the sacred contract to demand dramatic effects and advances in their lives. If the divine contract is what it says it is, then you have the right to raise your hand toward heaven and declare, “By the contract that I have with God through Jesus Christ, I command sickness to depart.” And demons and diseases must scurry away from you.

Christians have reduced the covenant into a mere framework to organize their theology. This is a disgrace. The heathens possess a superior understanding. The secular movies that depict a contract with the devil provide a more accurate picture of the covenant than the covenant theology in Christian literature. A man makes a contract with the devil to obtain supernatural powers, charisma, wealth, immunity to diseases and injuries, and many other things in exchange for his soul. But a contract with God is all talk? A contract signed in divine blood offers only spiritual and hidden benefits? Or if it does anything at all, it makes you sicker, poorer, sadder, and more self-righteous. What morons would believe this, except Christians? It is a contract with an actual Being, Person, and Intelligence. The Christian faith is a blood agreement with Power. And by the Scriptures he has revealed to us what he can do and what he likes to do.

He has declared that he enjoys overwhelming people with his healing, his prosperity, his success, his favor, his victory, his wisdom, his supernatural and superhuman abilities, and thousands of other benefits, as many as he has demonstrated throughout history, and he wishes to do even greater works than these in our lives. Scripture declares that he wishes to open the windows of heaven to shower us with more blessings and riches than we have room to contain. It says that he prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies, and my cup overflows. As I humble myself under the mighty hand of God, the Bible says that he will exalt me at the perfect time. It does not say that he will exalt himself, but me. What kind of man-centered theology is this? This is true covenant theology. We are dealing with this kind of a Being. We have a blood contract with this kind of a Person. We must expect these things in our lives. The will of God is salvation, creating a new and super race of humanity. The will of God is healing. The will of God is prosperity. The will of God is power, wisdom, favor, success, victory, happiness, and all the wonderful things that he has done and has promised to do for his people. Our contract with God is greater than any contract with the devil. Yet many claim to be Christians, but live as people without a contract. We refuse to be like this. We shall damn them all to hell in the name of the covenant before we surrender an inch to their garbage theology.

 

Invocation

“I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” We have a contract with God. Since this is the case, God has a contractual right to approach us at any time to make demands on us. This is what it means to have such a contract. This is admitted without hesitation, but the reverse is also true. We have a contractual right to approach God at any time to make demands on him. Jesus said this in various ways to his disciples, repeating the teaching again and again. He said that if we would remain in him, or if we would ask in his name, then we could ask for whatever is our will, and it would be done for us, or given to us. Fake piety considers this teaching of Jesus the height of irreverence, but God is the one who made the contract. This is what it means to have a covenant. If we do not believe that we can approach him like this, then we do not believe that he can approach us like this either. If we do not take it for granted that we can approach God with such boldness on the basis of the contract, then we do not believe that God can approach us like this on the basis of the contract. The Bible says that he is an ever-present help, and it says that we can come with boldness to the throne of grace to obtain from him. Any theology that does not affirm this reciprocity of access and obligation that God himself has sovereignly written into the contract is anti-covenant theology. Seemingly without exception, this is the true face of covenantal theology, covenantal philosophy, covenantal apologetics, covenantal hermeneutics, covenantal worship, covenantal counseling, covenantal discipleship, covenantal parenting, and covenantal everything else. It is phony, and a thoroughly anti-covenant culture.

There is no need to wait for God to decide whether he would help you on a case-by-case basis. There are people like that. They call themselves Christians and they think that they are deferring to the sovereignty of God. The truth is that they are living as people without a covenant. However, since there is indeed a covenant, to live as people without a covenant would mean that they reject the covenant or that they are outsiders of the covenant, that they are unbelievers. If God decides whether to help on a case-by-case basis, it would mean that he does not decide on the basis of a covenant or on a contractual basis. And this would either mean that God himself breaks the covenant, or that he addresses people who are not in the covenant. But those people who are obsessed with talking about the covenant still relate to God as if he decides on a case-by-case basis. They still live as those who are without God and without hope in this world. Their biggest boast is in reality their weakest point. Their theology is blasphemy. It implies that God disregards a covenant that he himself decided to establish. But God is not a liar.

We have a contract with God, signed by the blood of Jesus. He was the one who decided to sign the contract with us. If he had wanted to decide on a case-by-case basis, he would not have signed a contract. But he did sign a contract. This is why you can come to him with boldness and certainty. He could have left you to approach him each time without any rights, but he has given you rights to approach him whenever you wish. Consider Esther, who approached the king without any guarantee. At that time, when a person approached the king without being summoned, he would be put to death, except when the king reached out to him with his golden scepter. The king would decide on a case-by-case basis. What if the king issues a decree, a guarantee that a person may approach the throne whenever he wants? Then there would be no danger, no punishment, and no hesitation. Then there would be only eagerness and confidence to approach. There would be only an expectation to receive. He has free access to the king! It would be the end of all his problems. This is what God has given us in our contract with him. You do not have to wonder. He already signed the contract. You do not have to persuade him. He already persuaded himself. There is no hesitation. You are already accepted. He has decided to give you what you want.

He is our God. We are his people. We can come to him and say, “We invoke the contract that we have with you in Christ. We claim the benefits of redemption.” We do not manipulate God by this faith, since he is the source of this faith. He is the one who has decided to give us what is our will to ask in the name of Jesus. He never needed to enter into a contract with us. He initiated it so that he could give us a guarantee, a guarantee as an anchor for our faith, so that we would have a formal basis to believe that he would answer us when we call, that we could speak his message, and that we could act in his name. He wanted this. What we have with him is not a casual fling, but an everlasting contract. It is a forever faith.