Author: Victor Ashish Dasari

Date: February 01st, 2025

Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Type: A Thought

As the Church matured amid religious and philosophical plurality, defining the covenantal relationship between God and His people became essential for early Christian theologians to safeguard the faith from distortions. This essay will argue that although “hyper-grace” perspectives or an overly grace-oriented stance may overshadow the biblical demands of covenant, the covenant framework served as the foundational stepping stone for shaping Christian identity and, in turn, influenced broader moral discussions in both ecclesial and secular spheres.

The concept of covenant, beginning in the Old Testament, enabled God’s promises and humanity’s obligations to be clearly delineated.¹ This structure laid the foundation for progressive covenants that culminated in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Under the Mosaic covenant, for instance, the Law was employed to establish a holy nation.² This established a form of “legal architecture” in which moral and ceremonial codes created a sense of corporate identity.³ These frameworks were not constraints upon freedom; rather, they functioned as avenues through which the love and faithfulness of God could be experienced in everyday life.⁴

The development of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and ultimately the New Covenant demonstrated a “harmonical” and interlocking synergy of promises and responsibilities.⁵ This synergy matured especially through the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who stressed that while salvation is by grace alone, it simultaneously invites a life of holiness.⁶ The entire notion of “covenant” can be viewed as a divine “science” of relating to humankind—systematizing salvation through promises of blessing while ensuring the impetus toward righteous living.⁷ Consequently, the covenant theology that blossomed in the early Church provided a blueprint for understanding grace, faith, and obedience in unified harmony.⁸

Similarly, the New Covenant, revealed in Christ as the “mediator of a better covenant,”⁹ underscores that God’s law is inscribed on the believer’s heart.¹⁰ Rather than negating God’s moral requirements, it amplifies them through an interior transformation. This “interiorization” of obedience, akin to an “architectural blueprint” imprinted on our souls, spurred the early Church to embrace sacrificial, ethical, and communal dimensions of Christian life.¹¹ Far from stifling freedom, these covenantal boundaries became frameworks within which creativity—spiritual as well as moral—could flourish.

However, just as the use of scientific means in art and music once limited certain forms of expression, so too does an extreme emphasis on grace alone risk undermining the covenant’s essential call to faithfulness. This hyper-grace posture, while rightly celebrating God’s extravagant mercy, can inadvertently stifle ongoing transformation by dismissing the biblical demand for repentance, discipleship, and holy living. The Apostle Paul, addressing such distortions, declared: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!”¹² Tragically, this dismissal may position Christians to regard obedience as “un-doctrinal” or superfluous, thus “reap(ing) no profit for the soul” by neglecting the scriptural witness to covenant obligations.¹³

Indeed, resistance to covenantal responsibilities serves as a stark warning, reminding believers that spiritual pride or a shallow view of grace must not undermine the call to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling.”¹⁴ While grace abounds as a freely given gift, it is the covenant framework that situates believers in a posture of reverent responsibility. Covenant theology, in turn, honors both the awe-inspiring gratuity of salvation and the call to covenant faithfulness.¹⁵

After all, humanity, fashioned in God’s image, is summoned into a dynamic relationship with the triune God. The covenant is a divine architecture that structures divine-human interaction: a realm in which grace and ethical imperatives converge rather than conflict. In the end, although an openness to God’s unmerited favor remains paramount, respecting the fullness of the covenant—His promises, laws, and the Spirit’s transformative power—offers the most robust and holistic vision of Christian life.

Foot Notes: 

1. Exodus 19–24 (NASB 1994); cf. Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), 28.
2. Exodus 19:6 (NASB 1994).
3. Deuteronomy 7:6 (NASB 1994).
4. Deuteronomy 30:15–20 (NASB 1994).
5. Jeremiah 31:31–34 (NASB 1994).
6. Romans 6:1–2 (NASB 1994).
7. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 53–59.
8. James 2:17 (NASB 1994).
9. Hebrews 8:6 (NASB 1994).
10. Jeremiah 31:33–34 (NASB 1994).
11. Acts 2:42–47 (NASB 1994).
12. Romans 6:1–2 (NASB 1994).
13. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 3.19.9.
14. Ephesians 4:1 (NASB 1994).
15. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 55–70.