God's Covenant & My Failure - Ep. 930

God's Covenant, Failure, and Peter's Restoration

Failure can make a Christian feel disqualified, especially when the failure touches loyalty, faith, or public witness. This conversation presses in the other direction. Jesus spoke about the new covenant before Peter fell, and that timing matters.

What begins with light humor and a complaint about the summer heat turns into a serious walk through Luke 22, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 8, and the major covenants of Scripture. Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland keep coming back to one point: God's covenant with His people rests on the blood of Christ, not on human strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrSX1LehO3k

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), God's Covenant & My Failure - Ep. 930

A hot day, an old camp-meeting feel, and a weighty Bible question

The episode opens the way many Smith and Rowland conversations do, with joking back-and-forth. There is a running bit about dish soap sponsorships, some playful talk about modern dishwashers, and a shared admission that part of the reason for recording was simple: it was hot outside, and the podcast room was cool.

That light start gives way to a serious thought Jeff had been carrying since Sunday. He had preached the day before, then gone back out that night for an outdoor gathering because the church parking lot in Morganton was being paved. The service moved to Collettsville Park, under an open-air shelter with picnic tables and a small stage. He said it reminded him of the old camp meetings, and that setting seems to have sharpened the message in his mind.

The passage that stayed with him was Luke 22. Jesus had just spoken over the cup at the Last Supper, and then, almost immediately, He turned to Peter with a warning about sifting, failure, and future restoration. Jeff saw a connection that framed the whole discussion. First came the covenant. Then came the prediction of Peter's collapse.

That order is the point. Jesus did not wait to see how Peter performed before speaking covenant words. He established the covenant first, then He addressed the coming failure. For anyone who has ever wondered whether weakness cancels grace, that sequence matters more than it may appear at first glance.

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood"

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you."

Jeff lingers over one word in that sentence: "covenant." He notes that "testament" and "covenant" carry the same basic idea here, a binding promise established by God. If you want a concise overview of how the Bible uses that language, Bible Study Tools' covenant definition is a helpful starting point. In this passage, the covenant is not built on sentiment, sincerity, or human promise-keeping. It is built on the blood of Christ.

That is why the discussion reaches back through the Bible's larger covenant story. The show names several of the people with whom God made covenant:

• Adam

• Noah

• Abraham

• Moses

• David

Each name carries weight. Adam was made in God's image. Noah believed God when the world mocked the warning. Abraham was called God's friend. Moses was the great prophet of the old covenant. David was a worshiper, a warrior, and a king after God's own heart. Jeff's point is not merely to admire those men. His point is that believers today belong in that same line of covenant mercy.

That is where the message turns personal. He walks from those names to Ephesians 2 and says, in effect, "Then I thought about me." The contrast is sharp. These towering figures are followed by the description of fallen humanity, "dead in trespasses and sins." Yet God still brings sinners into covenant through Christ.

For a wider biblical overview, BibleProject's explanation of the Bible's key covenants shows how central this theme is from Genesis forward. The show's emphasis is simple and strong: the same God who made covenant through history has brought ordinary believers into covenant through the blood of Jesus.

Peter's denial came after the covenant was spoken

Jeff then moves to the warning Jesus gave Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat." He hears urgency in the repeated name. "Simon, Simon" is not casual language. It is a personal warning. It also suggests, as the hosts note, that some kind of request had been made. Satan had "desired" to have Peter. In other words, Peter was about to pass through pressure he did not choose.

Yet Jesus does not say, "I prayed that you would never fail." He says, "I prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." That is a hard and honest distinction. Peter would fail, and fail publicly. He would deny that he even knew the Lord, and he would do it three times. Still, Jesus had already looked beyond that moment.

Jeff's phrase for that future is Pentecost. He sees the denial as real, grievous, and painful, but not final. Christ looked past what Satan intended for destruction and saw the man who would later strengthen the brethren. That is why Jesus added, "when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Restoration was already in view before the failure happened.

Alan picks up the picture of sifting. Wheat on a sieve is shaken so the dirt and loose matter fall away. In that sense, sifting exposes what is there. The enemy intends harm, but the process also strips away illusions. A person under pressure often sees his own weakness more clearly than ever before. That is one reason Peter's story still cuts so close. It is not only about denial. It is about exposure.

Life brings many forms of sifting. Temptation, fear, shame, exhaustion, and disappointment all do similar work. The question the conversation presses is not whether sifting comes. It does. The question is how a believer responds once the shaking reveals what is inside.

The new covenant meets people where sin has done its worst

The hosts keep circling back to Ephesians 2 because it names the human condition without softening it. People are described as dead in trespasses and sins, walking according to the course of this world, under the influence of the prince of the power of the air. That description leaves no room for self-congratulation.

Then the turn comes.

"But God, who is rich in mercy..."

That line carries much of the pastoral force in the episode. Jeff draws a sharp contrast between learning to cope with problems and hearing the cross deal with the root issue of sin. In his language, counseling can teach a person how to live around a problem, while preaching the Word brings the only final answer to the sin problem itself. That answer is the blood of Christ.

Under the new covenant, forgiveness is not partial. God forgives sin. He removes it "as far as the east is from the west." He casts it away. He does not keep recording it against the believer. Then, in the language of the show, He places the righteousness of His Son on that believer's record. That is why the covenant produces joy and peace. It does not rest on mood, memory, or performance.

Jeff also makes a daily application. Because God's mercies are new every morning, the new covenant is new to the believer every day in lived experience. The covenant itself does not change, but the awareness of mercy is fresh again and again. Old things pass away; all things become new. That is not theory for people who know their own weakness. It is oxygen.

The old covenant and the new covenant belong together

Alan pushes the discussion into Hebrews 8 and the relationship between the old covenant and the new. His argument is direct: the new covenant does not erase the old covenant. It fulfills it. When Hebrews says, "if the first covenant had been faultless," he takes that to mean it was not complete, not that it was worthless or mistaken.

That distinction matters because the Bible's covenant story is one story. The old covenant is the foundation beneath the new. Without the old covenant, the new has no context. Alan makes that point with simple logic. If there were no old covenant, calling the later one "new" would lose its meaning. The earlier covenant pointed ahead. Christ fulfilled what it anticipated.

He also connects that reading to a dispensational approach to Scripture. In the conversation, that means God's promises to Abraham and David still matter as real promises, not merely inward ideas. The kingdom in the heart is true, but Alan argues that it does not cancel God's promises about land, throne, and future restoration. In his view, the New Jerusalem is not only symbolic language for a private spiritual experience. It is part of God's future work in the earth.

For readers who want a short explanation of covenant language in that larger biblical frame, GotQuestions' overview of biblical covenants lays out the basic idea clearly. The key point in the episode, though, is not academic. God's covenants hold because God keeps His word. Since He made them, believers can rest in them.

Alan also uses the legal language of a testator. Once Christ died and shed His blood, the covenant was ratified. The promise no longer stood as shadow alone. The blood had been applied.

Why covenant turns failure into a road to restoration

One of the strongest lines in the conversation comes late: because of the covenant, one of the best paths to success can run through failure. Jeff is not praising failure, and he is not lowering the seriousness of sin. He is saying that when Christ has bound Himself to His people in covenant mercy, failure does not get the final word.

Peter is the clearest example on the page. His denial was real. His shame was real. Yet Jesus had already prayed for him, and Jesus already had a future use for him. The same man who crumbled under pressure would later speak with boldness and strengthen others. That is the shape of restoration in the episode. Christ does not excuse failure. He restores the failed.

This also explains why the message presses toward revival. Jeff says that if people truly saw that God had brought them into covenant through Christ's blood, no one would need to talk them into revival. Fresh awareness of mercy would stir it. When he asked how many in the service had been born again, and hands went up across the room, his response was simple: "Covenant." In other words, God has not left His people at a distance. He has brought them near by blood.

The closing note of the discussion is fitting. The longer someone walks with God, the more clearly he knows he needs a Savior. Maturity does not reduce that need. It sharpens it. A man who has been sifted and restored knows exactly why grace matters.

Final thoughts

Luke 22 puts covenant and failure side by side, and that order is full of comfort. Jesus spoke covenant before Peter denied Him, and Jesus prayed before Peter understood how weak he was.

That is why this conversation lands with force. A believer's hope does not rest on an unbroken record. It rests on the blood of Christ, the mercy of God, and the Savior who still restores sifted people. Mercy is not a thin idea for people who have failed. It is the reason they are still standing.