Here's where we are in the article:
Wellum writes:
So far so good . . .
It is true that Covenant theologians do not view the "newness" of the New covenant to be a change of nature, which would be a replacement of the Old. Instead, they view it as a change of administration, which is a renewal of the Old. I would understand the term "administration" as synonymous with the term "structure," but perhaps Wellum is using the word differently.
Covenant theologians do not see the New covenant as defined by regenerate-only membership. That would indeed be a change in nature from Old to New, since the old covenant was defined by a mixed membership. Covenant theologians view the Baptist concept of regenerate-only covenant membership as an over-realized eschatology. It is taking the language of Jeremiah 31 as a wholly present reality.
Jeremiah describes the New covenant saying: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Baptists theologians interpret this passage as being a wholly present reality from Pentecost forward, leaving nothing for future fulfillment. Covenant theologians interpret this passage as teaching what is being fulfilled now after Pentecost and, in some respects, throughout all eras of redemptive history, the whole of which awaits a future fulfillment at the consummation. In other words they interpret it as being a partly present reality awaiting a future whole fulfillment.
Why do Covenant theologians interpret the Jeremiah 31 as describing realities that are for us both already and not yet fulfilled? One reason I might mention quickly is that taking the text as being already wholly fulfilled makes it say more than even Baptists will allow. The text says, "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord." If this is a wholly present reality now, we should need no teachers in the New Testament church, but the New Testament clearly includes a role for teachers. Therefore, this part of Jeremiah 31 is viewed by covenant theologians as a reality yet to be wholly fulfilled. It will be wholly fulfilled at glorification. Then there will be no need for teachers in the church. For more on why Covenant theologians interpret Jeremiah 31 as already partly fulfilled and not yet wholly fulfilled read Old Testament Professor Dr. Richard Pratt's excellent article.
Yes, exactly.
I. Introduction
II. The Covenantal Argument for Infant Baptism
1. An Outline of the Argument
2. The Nature of the "Covenant of Grace" and Infant Baptism
a) The Newness of the New Covenant
Wellum writes:
The “Newness” Of The New Covenant. Covenant theology does acknowledge that there are changes that have come about due to the coming of the “new covenant.” However, these changes are only changes that God himself has explicitly revealed to us and even in these changes there is a basic underlying continuity from age to age. Thus, for example, the sign of baptism is one of the several administrative changes that have taken place under the new covenant. As Randy Booth admits, “under the older administrations of the covenant of grace, circumcision was the sign and seal of covenant admission. Under the final administration of the covenant of grace (the new covenant), water baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of covenant admission.” But even though the form of the covenant sign has changed, given the underlying continuity of the covenant of grace, the spiritual significance of the covenant sign has not changed and hence the meaning and application of the sign is essentially the same in all eras.
Of course, this discussion raises an important question: What is “new” about the new covenant? What is the main difference, if any, between the older and newer administrations of the covenant of grace given the basic continuity of the covenant? Within Reformed theology the answer to these questions is not monolithic. However, despite various nuances, most covenant theologians agree that the main difference is that of “promise and fulfillment” (or “shadow and substance”). In other words, what the older administration promised through types, ceremonies, and sacrifices have now come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It is with this understanding that most covenant theologians view the “newness” of the new covenant in terms of a renewal rather than a replacement or such a strong sense of fulfillment that would lead to a discontinuity between the covenants. That is why most argue that the new covenant administration simply expands the previous era by broadening its extent and application and bringing with it greater blessing. Yet it leaves intact the fundamental elements of the covenant of grace—hence the assertion of the continuity of the covenant of grace across the ages.
So far so good . . .
But covenant theology’s discussion of “newness” fails to reckon that in the coming of Christ the nature and structure of the new covenant has changed, which, at least, entails that all those within the “new covenant community” are people, by definition, who presently have experienced regeneration of heart and the full forgiveness of sin (see Jer 31:29–34). Obviously this view of “newness” implies a discontinuity at the structural level between the old and new covenant—a view which is at the heart of the credobaptist position—but which covenant theology rejects.
It is true that Covenant theologians do not view the "newness" of the New covenant to be a change of nature, which would be a replacement of the Old. Instead, they view it as a change of administration, which is a renewal of the Old. I would understand the term "administration" as synonymous with the term "structure," but perhaps Wellum is using the word differently.
Covenant theologians do not see the New covenant as defined by regenerate-only membership. That would indeed be a change in nature from Old to New, since the old covenant was defined by a mixed membership. Covenant theologians view the Baptist concept of regenerate-only covenant membership as an over-realized eschatology. It is taking the language of Jeremiah 31 as a wholly present reality.
Jeremiah describes the New covenant saying: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Baptists theologians interpret this passage as being a wholly present reality from Pentecost forward, leaving nothing for future fulfillment. Covenant theologians interpret this passage as teaching what is being fulfilled now after Pentecost and, in some respects, throughout all eras of redemptive history, the whole of which awaits a future fulfillment at the consummation. In other words they interpret it as being a partly present reality awaiting a future whole fulfillment.
Why do Covenant theologians interpret the Jeremiah 31 as describing realities that are for us both already and not yet fulfilled? One reason I might mention quickly is that taking the text as being already wholly fulfilled makes it say more than even Baptists will allow. The text says, "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord." If this is a wholly present reality now, we should need no teachers in the New Testament church, but the New Testament clearly includes a role for teachers. Therefore, this part of Jeremiah 31 is viewed by covenant theologians as a reality yet to be wholly fulfilled. It will be wholly fulfilled at glorification. Then there will be no need for teachers in the church. For more on why Covenant theologians interpret Jeremiah 31 as already partly fulfilled and not yet wholly fulfilled read Old Testament Professor Dr. Richard Pratt's excellent article.
So, for example, paedobaptists continue to view the nature of the new covenant like the old, namely, as a mixed covenant which includes within it both the elect (covenant keepers) and the non-elect (covenant breakers) simultaneously. Suffice it to say, how one understands the nature and structure of the new covenant vis-à-vis the previous biblical covenants takes us to the heart of the baptismal divide.
Yes, exactly.
18 comments:
Thanks Jay, I have been reading your review but was waiting until you are finished to comment. In a future post, could you address the issue of the Spirit. The OT NC promises link full and final forgiveness of sins, God's intimate presence, and the gift of the Spirit. In fact, there are more promises about the age of the Spirit than the other two. How does this work in your system? We, like Jesus (Jn7.37-39), believe that the Spirit indwelling a believer is a post-Pentecost experience. Jer 31/Heb 8 is not the only text for us, but it is important. I still don't think the CT exegesis fits Hebrews or several other passages (e.g. 2 Cor 3). You say we "leave nothing for future fulfillment," but this is simply untrue. In the new earth, sin will completely be eradicated, and God will be with us like never before. We just see more discontinuity with the coming of Christ. He changed much more than CT allows. He is the end (telos) of the law covenant (Rom 10.4). Also, I have never heard a CT explain why only males are circumcised in the OC, but females are baptized in the NC. I'm just curious. Thanks again,
bw
Hi Blake,
I will be sure to address the work of the Spirit in a future post.
The OT NC promises link full and final forgiveness of sins, God's intimate presence, and the gift of the Spirit. In fact, there are more promises about the age of the Spirit than the other two. How does this work in your system?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you be more specific?
CT acknowledges the Spirit's regenerating and indwelling work in the OT.
I think it is important to define the term though. What do we mean by "indwelling"? Surely it has something to do with God's special presence. But how does that work? I think we have to be careful to think of indwelling, or God's special presence by his Spirit, as coordinate with the progress of revelation. In other words, I think there is a directly proportional relationship with the degree of the progress of special revelation and God's special presence among his people. As special revelation is filled out so also God's special presence among his people fills out. Word and Spirit always go together.
We see this with respect to 2 Cor. 3. Paul says, "Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory" (v. 10-11). What does Paul mean? I think he means that originally, in its time, the OC had glory. He says as much. But now, given the progress of revelation in the revealing of the mystery of the gospel, what once had glory has been superseded by what is even more glorious. How? Not because what has come has totally replaced or redefined it (though there are some major administrative changes explicitly commanded), but because what has come builds on what was before so that the special revelation of God to his people has reached its end in Christ Jesus. Just as the New covenant is greater than the Old covenant in glory by degree but not in substance, so also the ministry of the Spirit is now greater by degree but not in substance. In this sense, among others, Christ is the end of the law.
I apologize if what I wrote seemed to suggest the Baptist system doesn't allow for any future fulfillment at all. I meant the baptist view leaves nothing for future fulfillment in Jeremiah's prophecy of the New covenant. Sorry about that confusion.
On the circumcision of only males contrasted with the baptism of both males and females, CT explains this as an administrative difference (not a substantial difference). We do allow for discontinuity wherever there is an explicitly command or practice of such. In the NT women are baptized. This makes the discontinuity allowable. I view it as an element of the radical expansion of the New covenant compared to the Old.
CT begins with continuity. Discontinuity is allowed only if explicitly taught. Baptist theologians begin with discontinuity and (should) only allow for continuity if explicitly taught. Given that, I might ask you why Baptists allow women to participate in the Lord's Supper? There is neither an explicit command or practice evident in the NT. If Baptists were to be consistent, they would have to deny women the Supper. CT's on the other hand, are able to allow women to the table, because the table is understood as being continuous with the OT Passover.
I'm sure you've never heard that one :-)
Thanks Blake,
Jay
Hey Jay,
So, in John 7.37-39, Acts 2, the 'newness' of the Spirit is only God progressively revealing more of his 'special presence?' Were OT promises of the coming Spirit (Ezek 36, Joel 2) just promises of more of God's 'special presence?' Would you reiterate your view of the newness of the Spirit inlight of these passages?
Also, I don't think its fair to say that Baptists begin with discontinuity. I am just trying to let exegesis inform ST. I became a Christian, then Calvinist, then Baptist. Even within the Reformed tradition, there has been the questioning of the exegetical viability of the covenant of works/grace. Theological categories are fine, but they must do justice to all of Scripture.
Thanks again for the thoughtful interaction,
bw
p.s All disciples partake of the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11).
Blake,
So, in John 7.37-39, Acts 2, the 'newness' of the Spirit is only God progressively revealing more of his 'special presence?' Were OT promises of the coming Spirit (Ezek 36, Joel 2) just promises of more of God's 'special presence?' Would you reiterate your view of the newness of the Spirit in light of these passages?
Sure thing.
To your question above, So, in John 7.37-39, Acts 2, the 'newness' of the Spirit is only God progressively revealing more of his 'special presence?' I would answer yes, if the "only" was omitted. My point in the previous comment was not to exhaustively describe what God was doing by his Spirit at Pentecost but to just remind us of a defining aspect of the work of the Spirit among God's people through the ages, including Pentecost. It is important not to forget that the Spirit always works along with the Word. As the Word progresses, so does the Spirit.
With respect to John 7, Acts 2, Ezekiel 36, and Joel 2, I think we have what I've mentioned above, an increased degree of the Spirit's outpouring. Pentecost was special because of the pronounced and widespread nature of the Spirit's work of gifting all the believers (i.e. already regenerated and indwelt) in that place and time with special miraculous gifts. It is not as if the Spirit had not done this kind of work before, just that it had never been so pronounced and widespread.
Theological categories are fine, but they must do justice to all of Scripture.
I agree. That's what we're discussing.
The reason I say Baptist theologians begin from a perspective of discontinuity when viewing the Old and New Testaments is because this is a defining characteristic of Baptist theology. In other words, if it is not true, then the theologian in question is not Baptist (at least not yet). He could be, like you were, a Christian and even a Calvinist (soteriologically speaking) but not yet a Baptist. One cannot be a Baptist without beginning with a fundamental discontinuity between the testaments, whether that person understands this explicitly or not.
This leads to big problems for the baptist theologian. The inclusion of women in the Supper is one of those problems. You referred to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul never says in that text that women were participating in the Supper. Reaching the conclusion that they participated is an assumption, not based on the explicit teaching of the text.
Thanks Blake. It is a pleasure to talk with you about these important distinctions.
Thanks Jay, for the thoughtful response. Concerning John 7, Acts 2, Ezekiel 36, and Joel 2, I don't think saying it is "an increased degree of the Spirit's outpouring" does justice to the texts. Based upon exegesis of texts like these, I see more discontinuity in the NC. Of course I know you know this. This is one example of why I think the theological category 'cov. of grace' flattens the Bible out, not doing justice to the progressive nature of Scripture. How about a post on a specific passage: How do you explain Jn 7.39 with your system of continuity? Thanks again.
Blake,
I think the question isn't which interpretation has more (or less) discontinuity. It's which interpretation has the right kind of discontinuity. In other words, it's not really a question of quantity but quality. Everyone agrees there is discontinuity between the testaments, otherwise they would not be "they" (i.e. plural) but "it" (i.e. singular). Therefore the question is this: What kind of discontinuity or change exists between the testaments?
When discussing kinds of change, derivations of the old Aristotelian metaphysical categories of ousia (i.e. matter and form) oftentimes serve as the starting point. That's not an arbitrary method. The history of dogma demonstrates the church's reliance on such categories when explaining difficult doctrines like Nicene trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology. They have proven themselves to be very helpful tools. In the baptism discussion, the categories of nature (or essence) and administration (or dispensation) have typically been employed. These are from Aristotle.
Given those categories, Baptist theologians have answered the question about the kind of discontinuity that exists between the testaments by arguing for a change in nature and thus a change in administration. Covenant theologians have answered by arguing for a change in administration only.
With respect to John 7, I believe John Murray (NICNT) expresses the Covenantal interpretation well writing: "The expression translated 'for the Spirit was not yet given' is difficult. There is nothing in the Greek corresponding to 'given,' and a more literal rendering would be 'for it was not yet Spirit.' This probably points us to the period after Pentecost. The gift if the Holy Spirit to the infant church that day transformed everything, so that all that followed might be called the era of the Spirit. The Bible does not speak of the Spirit as totally inactive up till that point. There is much about Him in the Old Testament and the Gospels. But there is nothing that we can compare with the activity of the apostolic age. Then it was 'the Spirit' in a way it had never been before. John tells us it was the work of Jesus that made the difference. It was not yet Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified."
In other words, the change of Pentecost is not a change in the nature of the Spirit's work among God's people. The Spirit has always been at work to regenerate and indwell believers (i.e. make and sustain the new creation, respectively). He has also always been at work to revive the church, to specially gift believers to aid in his revelatory work, and to specially gift believers to do miraculous works. So, what is different about Pentecost besides the obvious historical situation, which was accompanied by the completion of God's 2000-year-coming special revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ?
Pentecost was special because of the pronounced and widespread nature of the Spirit's work of gifting all the believers (i.e. already regenerated and indwelt) in that place and time with special miraculous gifts, an outpouring that should never be divorced from the historical situation, especially with respect to the completion of the progress of revelation in the unveiling of the mystery of the gospel.
I think the Baptist answer (i.e. that there has been a change in nature between the testaments and thus in administration) is unacceptable for one fundamental reason. It unnaturally separates soteriology from ecclesiology by separating salvation from the covenants. In other words, Baptists cannot affirm that the Old covenant was, in itself, redemptive (i.e. a means by which God redeemed sinners) without positing multiple ways of salvation, because the only way the Old covenant can be thought of as a means of salvation without conceding multiple ways of salvation is to acknowledge that the Old and New covenants are the same in nature, which Baptists cannot do. This is a big problem when one considers the centrality of the covenant in the life and salvation of God's people throughout Scripture, from the beginning of the church with Abraham forward.
The Covenantal answer avoids this problem by asserting continuity (i.e. no change) in the nature of the Old and New Covenants, while also maintaining a proper understanding of discontinuity (i.e. change) in administrations.
Here are a couple biblical analogies:
(1) The Scriptures speak of old and new creations. What is the difference? It is not a difference in nature. That is unthinkable. The new heavens and new earth will still be the heavens and earth, right? The change is in condition (i.e. administration, economy). The new heavens and earth are becoming and will be "new" in the sense that they are being and will be perfected. In other words, "newness" is equivalent to "renewal."
(2) Likewise the Scriptures speak of the old and new man. What is the difference? Surely it's not a change in nature. The regenerate are still human now and will still be human at glorification, right? Again, the change is in condition (i.e. administration, economy). The new man is "new" in the sense that he has begun to be perfected and will finally be perfected in the end. In other words, "newness" is equivalent to "renewal."
In the same way the Scriptures speak of an Old and New covenants. What is the difference? Not nature but administration. The New covenant is "new" in the sense that, due to the completion of God's special revelation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God's redeeming work through the covenant is "held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles" (WCF 7.6).
The Covenantal answer avoids this problem [of separating salvation from the covenants] by asserting continuity (i.e. no change) in the nature of the Old and New Covenants, while also maintaining a proper understanding of discontinuity (i.e. change) in administrations.
The problem is that Scripture clearly separates salvation from the very nature of the Old Covenant -- “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). The Old Covenant (i.e., the Law) kills, which is the polar opposite of salvation. Indeed, Paul goes on to say that the Old Covenant is the “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and the “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9). Needless to say, any interpretation of these passages which teaches that the Old Covenant is a “ministry of life” and a “ministry of salvation” is clearly false.
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’… For if there had been a law given which could have given life [which is impossible, due to Adam’s imputed guilt and our inherited sinful nature], truly righteousness would have been by the law… Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Galatians 3:10, 21, 24-25
Yet, this discontinuity between the nature of the Old and New Covenants doesn’t in any way posit “multiple ways of salvation.” Paul made this quite clear when he wrote:
“Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant [i.e., the Abrahamic Covenant] that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law [i.e., the Old Covenant], it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made… And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:15-19, 25
Thus, the salvific continuity of the Covenant of Grace runs directly from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New Covenant (indeed, the New merely fulfills the gracious “promise” of salvation inherent within the Abrahamic Covenant), while the Old Covenant itself provides an historical discontinuity “till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal 3:19). But now that “faith has come [in the sense of expanded New Covenant blessings], we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal 3:25). In other words, under the historical administration of the Old Covenant (salvific discontinuity), God’s elect people were saved by virtue of the “promise” of the Abrahamic Covenant (salvific continuity), but now that the New Covenant has been inaugurated we are no longer under the “tutorship” of the Old Covenant Law, but rather serve God in the new way of the Spirit.
Roger,
I think we are diverging with respect to the term "nature." You seem to be suggesting that the Old Covenant, by which you mean the Mosaic covenant alone, was by its very nature a works-covenant. Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant is by nature a grace-covenant.
Is that what you are saying? If so I would disagree on these grounds:
(1) The Old Covenant is not just the Mosaic covenant, but it is the Mosaic covenant built upon the Abrahamic. In other words, the Mosaic covenant is gracious because it includes as its foundation the Arbahamic promise and stipulation. The two covenants may be distinguished but never separated, because they are by nature the same covenant of grace.
(2) A works covenant (i.e. works-based by nature) could not be made with sinners, because they would immediately be in violation of it with no hope.
(3) The Mosaic covenant cannot be a works-covenant by nature, because it includes a means of atonement.
(1) The Old Covenant is not just the Mosaic covenant, but it is the Mosaic covenant built upon the Abrahamic. In other words, the Mosaic covenant is gracious because it includes as its foundation the Abrahamic promise and stipulation. The two covenants may be distinguished but never separated, because they are by nature the same covenant of grace.
Sorry, Jay, but that’s not what Scripture teaches. Paul clearly teaches that the Mosaic Covenant is in opposition to the Abrahamic/New Covenant (again, the New Covenant is simply an extension and fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant of "promise").
“For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all… Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise… So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.” (Gal 4:24-31)
The contrast here couldn’t be clearer -- the Mosaic Covenant “gives birth to bondage” while the Abrahamic/New Covenant produces “freedom.” Only the “children of promise” (genuine members of the Covenant of Grace) are set free from the “bondage” generated by the Mosaic Covenant -- “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). You say that “the Mosaic covenant is gracious,” but Paul says that the Mosaic Covenant is “the ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and the “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9). That's hardly "gracious!" As I mentioned before, any interpretation of these passages which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant is a “ministry of life” and a “ministry of salvation” (i.e., a "gracious" covenant) is clearly false.
Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that the Abrahamic Covenant is based upon God's gracious "promise," while the Mosaic Covenant is based upon man's obedience to the Law -- two completely opposed principles for approaching God:
"And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant [i.e., the Abrahamic Covenant] that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law [as it would be if it were based upon the Mosaic Covenant], it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
The Abrahamic Covenant is founded upon God's gracious "promise"; the Mosaic Covenant is not. Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant does not "include as its foundation the Abrahamic promise and stipulation" as you claim.
Moreover, this "two covenant" contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and the Abrahamic/New Covenant continues throughout Scripture. "For if that first covenant [i.e., the Mosaic Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second [i.e., the New Covenant]... In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete." (Heb 8:7, 13). Indeed, the entire reason for Christ's sacrificial death was "for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant [the Old/Mosaic Covenant -- a restipulation of the Covenant of Works], that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance [i.e., of the Covenant of Grace]" (Heb 9:15). According to Scripture, Christ had to redeem "those who were under the law" (Gal 4:5), because "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Gal 3:10).
Finally, Paul plainly teaches that the Mosaic Covenant is based upon law/works, while the Abrahamic/New Covenant is based upon grace/faith: "For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed" (Rom 4:14-16). "Yet the law is not of faith, but 'the man who does them shall live by them'" (Gal 3:12). "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work" (Rom 11:6). Thus, grace and law, faith and works are in opposition to one another. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is not and cannot be a "gracious" covenant by nature.
(2) A works covenant (i.e. works-based by nature) could not be made with sinners, because they would immediately be in violation of it with no hope.
Your premise here is simply false. If one of God's purposes in giving the Mosaic Law was so that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3:19), then it was absolutely necessary for Him to make a "works covenant" with sinners -- "for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15)! If one of God's purposes in giving the Mosaic Law was so that "the offense might abound" (Rom 5:20), in order that sin might be known as sin -- "For apart from the law sin was dead" (Rom 7:8) -- then it was absolutely necessary for Him to make a "works covenant" with sinners! And if God's primary purpose in giving the Mosaic Law was for it to be our "tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3:24), then it was absolutely necessary for Him to make a "works covenant" with sinners. Therefore, while God may have used the Mosaic Law for a gracious purpose -- in order to lead us to Christ for justification by faith -- in and of itself (i.e., by its very nature) it was a “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and a “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9). Again, that's hardly "gracious!"
Moreover, the fact that the Mosaic Law is primarily a "works covenant" is the explicit teaching of Scripture. For the Mosaic Law, by its very nature, promises eternal life for obedience (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12) and eternal death for disobedience (Gal 3:10) -- the same precise terms as the Covenant of Works with Adam. Indeed, Jesus Himself confirmed this principle when He told the rich young ruler, "But if you want to enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments" (Matt 19:16-17). Therefore, the Mosaic Law promises eternal life for perfect obedience to its commandments, which is the very essence of the Covenant of Works.
(3) The Mosaic covenant cannot be a works-covenant by nature, because it includes a means of atonement.
But the Mosaic Covenant does not include a "means of atonement" that actually takes away sin or propitiates God's wrath.
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect… But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins" (Heb 10:1-4)
The animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant, rather than being a means of atonement that actually takes away sin, merely provided a yearly “reminder of sins.” They didn’t truly atone for any sins at all.
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Heb 10:11-14)
Thus, rather than being a "means of atonement" that actually takes away sin or propitiates God's wrath (which would indeed be “gracious”), the Mosaic Covenant simply pointed to the one true sacrifice of the Messiah -- which ratified the Covenant of Grace “through the blood of the eternal covenant” (Heb 13:20). So the nature of the Mosaic Covenant as a “works-covenant” still stands; it condemned men for their sin and pointed away from itself to the one true atonement of the Covenant of Grace.
Now, if you simply mean that God used the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law for a gracious purpose -- in order to illustrate and point us to the one true sacrifice of the Messiah -- I would agree wholeheartedly. But in and of itself (i.e., by its very nature) it didn’t atone for a single sin. Rather than being a covenant of grace and life, it was a “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and a “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9).
By the way, none of this means that I disagree with the main point of your post. Since the New Covenant is simply an extension and fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant of "promise" (i.e., the Covenant of Grace), our children are to receive the “sign” of the Covenant just as they did under the Abrahamic Covenant. While the “sign” used to be circumcision, it is now baptism. Only the outward “sign” has changed under the present administration of the Covenant of Grace, not the “reality” which it signifies.
Hi Roger,
I believe your response is a way to interpret the passages at hand but not the best way.
For instance you frame the entire work of Christ as a response to the failure of the Mosaic covenant. I would ask: Did Christ's death have no meaning for those saints who lived prior to Moses?
In other words, I believe the Scriptures teach that the moral law was issued to Adam in the covenant of works. That same moral law was republished and brought to the foreground with Moses, but not as a new covenant of works. It was republished as an aspect of the covenant of grace to, as you say, draw out and condemn sin, sin that existed according to the covenant of works made with Adam.
Nonetheless, the Mosaic law did include a means of atonement, a ceremonial law foreshadowing the work of Christ "which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament." Westminster does not separate the Mosaic covenant out as a covenant of works opposed to the covenant of grace. It understands that the Mosaic covenant is part of the old administration of the one covenant of grace. I think the divines got it right.
Hi Jay,
Well, we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one (though I don’t think we’re that far apart). Either way, it’s always good to doctrinally “spar” with you -- how’s that broken jaw coming along? :-) Anyway, you wrote:
For instance you frame the entire work of Christ as a response to the failure of the Mosaic covenant.
Not exactly. But Scripture does say that the reason for Christ’s sacrificial death was "for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). Surely this refers to the Mosaic Covenant, since that is what the term “first covenant” consistently refers to in the book of Hebrews. Yet, according to your view, how could Christ’s sacrificial death be “for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant,” if the “first covenant” wasn’t a works covenant that resulted in condemnation for the violation of its terms?
I would ask: Did Christ's death have no meaning for those saints who lived prior to Moses?
Of course Christ’s death has meaning for those saints who lived prior to Moses. Christ’s shed blood is the “blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb 13:20), and therefore atones for the sins of all His elect people regardless of what period of history they live in.
In other words, I believe the Scriptures teach that the moral law was issued to Adam in the covenant of works. That same moral law was republished and brought to the foreground with Moses, but not as a new covenant of works. It was republished as an aspect of the covenant of grace to, as you say, draw out and condemn sin, sin that existed according to the covenant of works made with Adam.
I agree with you that “the moral law was issued to Adam in the covenant of works.” I also agree that “the same moral law was republished and brought to the foreground with Moses.” But how could it not have been republished as a “covenant of works,” when Scripture plainly states that “the man who does those things shall live by them” (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12), and “cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal 3:10) -- the precise same terms as given under the Covenant of Works? These are not “aspects of the covenant of grace” to say the least. Sinners are only condemned by the moral law under the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Grace saves; it doesn’t condemn!
Nonetheless, the Mosaic law did include a means of atonement, a ceremonial law foreshadowing the work of Christ "which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament."
I agree that the animal sacrifices, as “types and ordinances…fore-signifying Christ to come,” were used by God for a gracious purpose -- “to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation.” If that is all the Westminster divines meant, then I wholeheartedly agree. But this doesn’t change the fact that the Mosaic Law, in and of itself (i.e., by its very nature), was “the ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and “the ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9). How can “the ministry of death” and “the ministry of condemnation” be a part of the Covenant of Grace? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
Yes Roger, we will have to agree to disagree. I am a minister of the Gospel and have submitted myself to the teaching of the Westminster Standards. I believe Westminster's doctrine of "God's Covenant with Man" is true.
Nonetheless, I'll ask a few more questions. If there is a discontinuity of nature between the Old and New covenants, as you have confessed, how can the author of Hebrews present parallels between the two covenants like:
"Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him" (Heb. 9:13-28).
The author of Hebrews seems to understand that these two covenants are so similar that the ceremony of atonement in the one exactly parallels the ceremony of atonement in the other. Was this ceremony not of the essence of the Old Covenant and the New? Of course it was. Therefore they must be the same in nature.
When interpreting Hebrews, as with any text, it is extremely important to understand the author's project. What was the project of the author of Hebrews (AH). I think it is plainly recognized among interpreters that AH is seeking to do one thing:
Encourage Jewish Christians to embrace their new identity in Christ while warning them not to revert to the old Levitical ceremony.
Given that purpose, how should we read understand the contrast AH makes between the Old ceremony (which he simply calls the Old covenant) and the New? I think it is clear. Taking his teaching to mean their is a fundamental change in nature between the Old and New Covenants is simply beyond what he is trying to accomplish. It makes much more sense to understand him as teaching that the time of the Levitical ceremony has ceased. In other words, there has been a change in expression or administration of God's covenant among his worshiping people. That is how the Westminster divines understood this issue.
You also quoted Paul's contrast in Galatians. Again, before gathering proof-texts, we must first know the grid through which those texts should be interpreted. That includes, again, understanding the author's project in Galatians. What is Paul doing there? Well, I think it is clear that Paul's project is this:
To combat the false teaching that one must not only believe in Christ but follow the Old ceremonies (i.e. circumcision, become a Jew, et. al.) in order to be justified before God.
Let's not make the mistake of believing that Paul is combating the true purpose of the law. The law was never meant to justify.
Therefore, Paul's message in Galatians is this:
No one has ever been justified by the law, because that was not the purpose of the law.
Why? Because it is not a covenant of works! If the Old Covenant was a covenant of works then Paul is wrong to say that one could not be justified through it. Instead, Paul points out the fundamental continuity between the Abrahamic covenant and Old covenant, teaching that justification, even under the Old covenant was by faith. The law which was originally issued to Adam as a Covenant of Works was reissued as in the Moasic administration of the one covenant of grace in order to remind the people of their sin and, subsequently, their need for atonement.
The problem Paul faced was very similar to the problem Jesus faced with the religious leaders of his day. They understood the Mosaic code as a covenant of works. Jesus called them out on that and corrected them in the Sermon on the Mount (i.e. "you have heard ... but I say ..."). He taught that the Mosaic law was not a covenant of works, because if it was no one could be saved. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus demonstrated the real purpose of the law, not to justify as in a covenant of works, but to remind God's people of their sin which existed due to Adam's failure under the covenant of works and train them up in the faith, a faith that brings forgiveness of sin and justification before God.
Again Roger, as I said in my first response the point of departure in our understanding has to do with the term "nature." I believe the both the Old and New covenants include aspects of the covenant of works. Those aspects are in the foreground in the Old administration. But having aspects of the covenant of works does not make a covenant a covenant of works. What makes a covenant a covenant of works is sinless parties, agreeing to perform works perfectly, with the reward of eternal life held out for obedience and eternal condemnation held out for disobedience. The Mosaic covenant never included any of those things.
The author of Hebrews seems to understand that these two covenants are so similar that the ceremony of atonement in the one exactly parallels the ceremony of atonement in the other. Was this ceremony not of the essence of the Old Covenant and the New? Of course it was. Therefore they must be the same in nature.
The fact that the Old Covenant rites were “copies of the heavenly things” doesn’t in any way mean that they were “the same in nature” with Christ’s sacrificial death. Indeed, quite the opposite is true! Rather than being a genuine means of atonement that actually takes away sin (as Christ’s atonement was), the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant merely provided a yearly “reminder of sins.” They simply pointed to Christ’s one true sacrifice that “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Heb 10:11-14)
Thus, the ceremony of atonement under the Old Covenant is not “the same in nature” with Christ’s atoning death at all! The one “takes away sin,” the other does not. The one truly “redeems” sinners, the other does not. The one actually “propitiates” God’s wrath, the other does not. The one “ratifies” the Covenant of Grace -- “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28) -- the other does not. Indeed, “the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things” (Heb 10:1) is of an entirely different “nature” than the “the blood of the eternal covenant” (Heb 13:20), which ratified and secured the Covenant of Grace.
Taking his teaching to mean their is a fundamental change in nature between the Old and New Covenants is simply beyond what he is trying to accomplish. It makes much more sense to understand him as teaching that the time of the Levitical ceremony has ceased. In other words, there has been a change in expression or administration of God's covenant among his worshiping people.
“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law… For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” (Heb 7:12)
Sorry, but it sure seems like a “fundamental change in nature” to me!
Let's not make the mistake of believing that Paul is combating the true purpose of the law. The law was never meant to justify. Therefore, Paul's message in Galatians is this: No one has ever been justified by the law, because that was not the purpose of the law. Why? Because it is not a covenant of works! If the Old Covenant was a covenant of works then Paul is wrong to say that one could not be justified through it.
That’s simply not true! The only reason we can’t be justified by the law is because of our failure to meet its demands -- because of our sin! Paul himself declares:
“And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” (Rom 7:10-12)
The commandment, by its very nature, “was to bring life.” It is only our sin that causes it to fail! The law itself is “holy, and the commandment holy and just and good!” Moreover, Scripture makes it quite clear that the law, by its very nature, promises eternal life to those who perfectly obey it commands -- the very essence of a covenant of works:
“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” (Lev 18:5)
“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them.’” (Rom 10:5)
“Yet the law is not of faith [rather, it is by “works”], but ‘the man who does them shall live by them.’” (Gal 3:12)
Finally, to say that “No one has ever been justified by the law, because that was not the purpose of the law” is an incredible statement! Was not Christ “justified” by His fulfillment of the law (1 Tim 3:16; cf. Php 2:9-11)? Was He not “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal 4:4-5)? Did He not say, “I have finished the work which You have given Me to do” (Jn 17:4)? If the law “is not a covenant of works,” as you claim, then on what basis did Christ merit the “righteousness” that’s imputed to us in the act of justification? The Apostle Paul declares:
“Therefore, as through on man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience [to the law] many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience [to the law] many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:18-19)
Let me be clear: If “No one has ever been justified by the law, because that was not the purpose of the law,” then we have no Redeemer, we have no Hope, we have no Salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord!
The problem Paul faced was very similar to the problem Jesus faced with the religious leaders of his day. They understood the Mosaic code as a covenant of works.
No, their “problem” was that they falsely believed they were fulfilling the law, while in reality they were vile, guilty sinners! If they were in fact fulfilling the law, they would have been justified:
“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them.’” (Rom 10:5)
What makes a covenant a covenant of works is sinless parties, agreeing to perform works perfectly, with the reward of eternal life held out for obedience and eternal condemnation held out for disobedience. The Mosaic covenant never included any of those things.
It’s simply not true that a covenant of works requires “sinless parties, agreeing to perform works perfectly.” Where does Scripture teach that? Moreover, you claim that the Mosaic Covenant never included “the reward of eternal life held out for obedience and eternal condemnation held out for disobedience.” Again, that’s simply not true!
Reward of Eternal Life for Obedience:
“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” (Lev 18:5)
“For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them.’” (Rom 10:5)
“Yet the law is not of faith [rather, it is by “works”], but ‘the man who does them shall live by them.’” (Gal 3:12)
Punishment of Eternal Condemnation for Disobedience:
“Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.” (Dt 27:26)
“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Gal 3:10)
Finally, if the Mosaic Law was essentially part of the Covenant of Grace, then why did Paul teach that it was a covenant “which gives birth to bondage” (Gal 4:24), and was a “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7) and a “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor 3:9)? If the Covenant of Grace brings freedom and life and justification, and the Mosaic Law brings bondage and death and condemnation, then how can the Mosaic Law be part of the Covenant of Grace? You have still not answered that fundamental question.
Roger,
My point about the similarity of the covenants, which the author of Hebrews (AH) discusses, is this:
The atonement system of the Old and New covenants is the same. Both covenants teach that sinners need forgiveness and that forgiveness comes by the shedding of blood. The Westiminster divines understood this when they describe the ceremonies of the Old Covenant writing: "which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament" (7.5).
In other words, the Old and New covenants, being by nature the same covenant, worked in the same salvific fashion.
The fact that the Old Covenant rites were “copies of the heavenly things” doesn’t in any way mean that they were “the same in nature” with Christ’s sacrificial death.
I think you've misunderstood me and AH. AH does not say that the rites themselves were copies but that the temple and its paraphernalia were copies. In Hebrews 9:23-28, AH is pointing out that both the copies of the heavenly things and the heavenly things themselves were purified with the exact same rites. The only difference is that the former was purified by a copy of the heavenly (i.e. the blood of livestock) whereas the latter was purified by the blood of the High Priest who offered it, the Lord Christ himself. Nonetheless, the rites are the same. And, since the rites in question were the very heart (i.e. defining characteristics) of both covenants, then both covenants must be the same by nature. This is my line of reasoning on this doctrine.
Rather than being a genuine means of atonement that actually takes away sin (as Christ’s atonement was), the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant merely provided a yearly “reminder of sins.” They simply pointed to Christ’s one true sacrifice that “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
I don't think this does justice to the text. Let's look at Exodus 29:35-37 (cf. Lv. 4:20; 17:11; 23:27; Dt 21:8). The Lord commands Moses saying:
"Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. Through seven days shall you ordain them, and every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall purify the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it to consecrate it. Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy. Whatever touches the altar shall become holy."
This text says that there were sacrifices of atonement in the Old covenant. God commands that these sacrifices be made continually, and he accepts them as such. Of course we understand that they point forward to the blood of Christ and only have atoning benefits insofar as they picture forth the blood of Christ. His blood is the only ultimate atonement for sin. I, along with the framers of the Confession, understand this Old covenant sacrificial system, as being "for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation."
How would you interpret this passage Roger?
You quoted Hebrews 10:11, which says the Old covenant sacrifices can never take away sins. I agree with the passage. But I don't believe the passage is teaching that the Old sacrifices were for that time, insufficient and non-efficacious. AH is not teaching that there was no atonement in the Old covenant. he is teaching that the Old covenant atonement required continual, repetitious sacrifice. Let's read the text, "And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins . . . " The issue in AH's teaching is not the efficacy or value of the sacrifices per se but the permanence or endurance of them.
You cited Leviticus 18:5; Romans 7:10-12; 10:5; and Galatians 3:12 in order to make the point that one could be justified by the law. I don't, and haven't yet, disputed that point.
Here's is a very important distinction to be maintained.
If you have a copy of the Westmintser Confession of Faith that includes proofs (online here.), take a look at the proof for Chapter 19 "Of the Law of God" Article 1. What you will see is that the divines point to Galatians 3:10 when proofing the law given to Adam. Does that mean they believed the Old covenant was a covenant of works? No. Chapter 7 will not allow for that interpretation. So what does it mean. It means that they understood the Old covenant, which was by nature gracious, was a law administration. In other words the law of the covenant of works made with Adam was front-and-center in the law administration of the covenant of grace. Why? Primarily to remind the people of their sin and point them to the atonement that was available ultimately in Christ.
But nonetheless, while the Old covenant was gracious by nature, it did emphasize aspects of the covenant of works. One of those aspects is the truth that, if the law was part of a covenant of works as it was originally given to Adam and one followed it with sinless perfection, he would show himself to be justified before God. This is what Leviticus 18:5; Romans 7:10-12; 10:5; and Galatians 3:12 are teaching. However, the law as it is given through Moses is not given as a covenant of works but of grace. It is not meant to justify but to drive God people ultimately to Christ. This is the context in which Paul teaches the Galatians that, no one has ever been justified by the law (as given by Moses), because that was not the purpose of the law (as given by Moses). So with respect to Christ, I agree that he fulfilled the law. But we must remember that he fulfilled it as the second Adam, as a covenant of works. It is very important to distinguish between the law given to Adam as a covenant of works and the law given to Moses as an administration of the covenant of grace.
No, their “problem” was that they falsely believed they were fulfilling the law, while in reality they were vile, guilty sinners! If they were in fact fulfilling the law, they would have been justified.
Again, and this gets back to my thesis that a covenant of works cannot be made with a sinful party. If the Pharisee is conceived a sinner, at what point in his life could he have actually lived in fulfillment of the law?
It’s simply not true that a covenant of works requires “sinless parties, agreeing to perform works perfectly.” Where does Scripture teach that?
I don't think it teaches it explicitly. It teaches it by inference. The Westminster divines understood that a covenant of works was made with Adam, a sinless man. Once sin entered the world through Adam there can be no more covenant of works arrangements, because the covenant was broken forever for Adam and his progeny. Perhaps Romans 5:12-21 is a good text to consider here.
Finally you pointed out several blessing and curses passages with respect to the Old covenant. There have been two popular reformed interpretations of these passages. I think both are true.
(1) Sometimes temporal blessings are held out as a temporal reward for living according to the law of God. This seems to be a principle that is true most but not all of the time: If one orchestrates his life according to God's law he will live a blessed life.
(2) Other times we see the law aspect of the Old covenant enter in to teach God's people about sin. How? By reminding them of the covenant of works by which they failed in Adam. So, when the text offers eternal life for obedience and condemnation for disobedience, it is looking back to the covenant of works (not to the Mosaic covenant).
I hope this is helpful Roger. Please let me know if I can help clarify anything I've written any further.
Your brother and servant in Christ,
Jay
Hi Jay,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you, but I’ve been really busy this week. You wrote:
The Westminster divines understood this when they describe the ceremonies of the Old Covenant writing: "which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament" (7.5). In other words, the Old and New covenants, being by nature the same covenant, worked in the same salvific fashion.
The ceremonies of the Old Covenant were merely types of the heavenly ceremonies and the blood of Christ, which alone cleanses us from all sin. It is only through "faith in the promised Messiah" and His sacrificial death for their sins (the "blood of the eternal covenant" Heb 13:20) that the Old Covenant saints were saved. The Old Covenant itself, by its very nature, did nothing to save; rather it "gave birth to bondage" (Gal 4:24), and was a "ministry of death" and "condemnation" (2 Cor 3:7-9) -- "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). That is the inspired interpretation of the Old Covenant by an Apostle of Christ, and that is what we should go by.
In Hebrews 9:23-28, AH is pointing out that both the copies of the heavenly things and the heavenly things themselves were purified with the exact same rites…the rites are the same. And, since the rites in question were the very heart (i.e. defining characteristics) of both covenants, then both covenants must be the same by nature. This is my line of reasoning on this doctrine.
But the rites were not the same. The Old Covenant rites were merely a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb 8:5). Copies and shadows are not the "same by nature" as the reality which they represent. AH declares:
“It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” (Heb 9:9-10)
They were merely “symbolic” and “fleshly” ordinances that signified the heavenly reality. Moreover, AH clearly teaches that the earthly rites and the heavenly rites were "purified" with completely different sacrifices:
"Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the heavenly things should be purified with these [the animal sacrifices], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices" [the blood of Christ, that actually "takes away" sin]. (Heb 9:23)
The "symbolic" and "fleshly" rites of the Old Covenant certainly weren't salvific as you seem to indicate -- "In other words, the Old and New covenants, being by nature the same covenant, worked in the same salvific fashion." Only the blood of Christ has saving efficacy:
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb 9:24-26)
How would you interpret this passage [Ex 29:35-37] Roger?
I would interpret it in a way that is consistent with the inspired interpretation given in the New Testament:
"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more should the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb 9:13)
The animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant merely sanctified "for the purifying of the flesh." They didn't have any saving efficacy in themselves, and were therefore not part of the Covenant of Grace:
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect...But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (Heb 10:1-4)
Only the shed blood of Christ, which ratified the Covenant of Grace, is an atonement that truly takes away the sins of God's people -- "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Heb 10:10-14). Christ alone is the Lamb of God Who "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
The issue in AH's teaching is not the efficacy or value of the sacrifices per se but the permanence or endurance of them.
Read Hebrews 10:1-4 again. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." According to the text, the Old Covenant sacrifices never had any "efficacy" or "value" to take away sins -- not even for a second! It’s “not possible” that they could do so. "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect...But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year." That's what the text plainly says, and that's what we should go by.
You cited Leviticus 18:5; Romans 7:10-12; 10:5; and Galatians 3:12 in order to make the point that one could be justified by the law. I don't, and haven't yet, disputed that point.
If that's the case, and the Old Covenant law by it very nature promises justification/eternal life to those who fulfill its terms, then you are simply using the word "nature" incorrectly when you say that the law as given through Moses is by nature a covenant of grace. As I said before, God certainly gave the law through Moses for a gracious purpose toward His elect -- to convict them of their sin and lead them to justification by faith in Christ alone (of course, it's also true that He gave it in order to increase the condemnation of the non-elect, so it wasn’t given for a “gracious” purpose in that respect). But that doesn't change the "nature" of the law itself -- it still promises justification/eternal life to those who fulfill its terms, and threatens condemnation/eternal death to those who violate its terms. That's what I mean when I say that the Old Covenant law by nature is a covenant of works.
What you will see is that the divines point to Galatians 3:10 when proofing the law given to Adam. Does that mean they believed the Old covenant was a covenant of works? No. Chapter 7 will not allow for that interpretation.
Not necessarily. If the law by nature is a covenant of works, as I've explained above, then it simply means that God gave it through Moses to be subservient to the Covenant of Grace, which wouldn’t contradict WCF 7 in any way. And that's precisely what Paul taught:
Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it... And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise [Why? Because the law promises the reward by "works" rather than by "grace." Therefore it is not part of the Covenant of Grace]; but God gave it to Abraham by promise... Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith [thus the law was "subservient" to the Covenant of Grace for the purpose of leading elect sinners to Christ]. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal 3:15-25)
But nonetheless, while the Old covenant was gracious by nature, it did emphasize aspects of the covenant of works. One of those aspects is the truth that, if the law was part of a covenant of works as it was originally given to Adam and one followed it with sinless perfection, he would show himself to be justified before God. This is what Leviticus 18:5; Romans 7:10-12; 10:5; and Galatians 3:12 are teaching.
The fact that we are born guilty sinners and are unable to fulfill the demands of the law doesn't change the "nature" of the law itself; it still promises justification/eternal life to those who fulfill its terms, and threatens condemnation/eternal death to those who violate its terms. The above cited passages simply teach that "the man who does them shall live by them." You seem to be reasoning from the false premise that our inability to meet this demand changes the very "nature" of the law itself. I don't see where Scripture teaches such a notion. While the Covenant of Works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, the works "nature" of the law remained in effect even after it had been violated by Adam and republished by God on Mount Sinai.
So with respect to Christ, I agree that he fulfilled the law. But we must remember that he fulfilled it as the second Adam, as a covenant of works. It is very important to distinguish between the law given to Adam as a covenant of works and the law given to Moses as an administration of the covenant of grace.
But Scripture teaches that Christ fulfilled the law as it had been given to Moses, not as it had been given to Adam prior to the Fall:
"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." (Gal 4:4-5)
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law [i.e., the Mosaic Law], to do them'... Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” [again, written in the Mosaic Law]), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal 3:13-14)
Again, and this gets back to my thesis that a covenant of works cannot be made with a sinful party. If the Pharisee is conceived a sinner, at what point in his life could he have actually lived in fulfillment of the law?
He couldn't have. But, once again, you are reasoning from the false premise that our inability to meet the law's demands changes the very "nature" of the law itself. But this isn't taught in Scripture. As I mentioned above, while the Covenant of Works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, the works "nature" of the law remained in effect even after it had been violated by Adam and republished by God on Mount Sinai.
I don't think it teaches [that a covenant of works requires “sinless parties, agreeing to perform works perfectly”] explicitly. It teaches it by inference. The Westminster divines understood that a covenant of works was made with Adam, a sinless man. Once sin entered the world through Adam there can be no more covenant of works arrangements, because the covenant was broken forever for Adam and his progeny. Perhaps Romans 5:12-21 is a good text to consider here.
The Covenant of Works didn't simply become null and void after the entrance of the Covenant of Grace. It remains in force throughout history. That's why Scripture teaches that we are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). And that's why the law retained its "nature" as a covenant of works when it was republished by God on Mount Sinai (promising eternal life for obedience, and threatening eternal death for disobedience). Only those who are freely chosen by God to be included in the Covenant of Grace escape the law's covenant "curse" (Gal 3:13-14)!
In Christ,
Roger
Roger,
I encourage you to read back through my previous couple of comments, particularly about the distinction the Westminster divines recognized between the Covenant of Works given to Adam, which Paul oftentimes refers to as simply the Law, and the Old covenant, which includes the law but is not a Covenant of works.
Also, with respect to AH's comparison of the Old covenant and the work of Christ in the New, I encourage you to read the text very carefully. The text doesn't say that the rites themselves were copies of the heavenly. It says that the implements (e.g. the tabernacle/temple, priests, blood, animal sacrifices, food, drink, washings, and all the temple paraphernalia, etc.) were copies of the heavenly. Why? To make the point that while the rites of both administrations are the same, the Old administration of rites was imperfect, incomplete, needing to be performed continually, whereas the New administration of rites is perfect, complete, having been performed once for all by our eternal High Priest Jesus Christ.
I wonder, if I accept your view for the sake of argument, how then do I understand Christ as priest?
Read Hebrews 10:1-4 again. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." According to the text, the Old Covenant sacrifices never had any "efficacy" or "value" to take away sins -- not even for a second!
Again, I think I said this in my previous response at some point, the issue is not value or efficacy per se, the issue is endurance. The Old covenant sacrifices were sufficient and efficacious, as Westminster confesses, but not enduring. In other words, the Old sacrifices had to be offered repeatedly, in that sense they did not "take away" sin. But with Christ, the perfect sacrifice, one offering has been given for all time.
If that's the case, and the Old Covenant law by it very nature promises justification/eternal life to those who fulfill its terms, then you are simply using the word "nature" incorrectly when you say that the law as given through Moses is by nature a covenant of grace. As I said before, God certainly gave the law through Moses for a gracious purpose toward His elect -- to convict them of their sin and lead them to justification by faith in Christ alone (of course, it's also true that He gave it in order to increase the condemnation of the non-elect, so it wasn’t given for a “gracious” purpose in that respect). But that doesn't change the "nature" of the law itself -- it still promises justification/eternal life to those who fulfill its terms, and threatens condemnation/eternal death to those who violate its terms. That's what I mean when I say that the Old Covenant law by nature is a covenant of works.
I'm not disputing the nature of the law but the nature of the Old covenant, which included an emphasis on the law. I agree that the God will declare just those who fulfill the law under the Covenant of Works given to Adam. But the law is not given to Moses as a Covenant of Works, which is why no one after Adam can be justified by works of the law. It is given as an administration of the one Covenant of Grace.
Also, I would not agree that the biblical concept of "law" is equivalent to the concept of "covenant of works." The law was a fundamental characteristic of the covenant of works. Indeed, the covenant of works includes law by nature (i.e. as a defining characteristic). But that does not therefore mean that the law must always be understood as a covenant of works. I'm sure you agree with this, since the New covenant includes law.
This raises an interesting question that we have not yet talked about. If the law is equivalent to the covenant of works, how then can we hold to Calvin's third use of the law? Your position would seem to only allow for Luther's two-use theory.
Not necessarily. If the law by nature is a covenant of works, as I've explained above, then it simply means that God gave it through Moses to be subservient to the Covenant of Grace, which wouldn’t contradict WCF 7 in any way.
No, this isn't saying enough. WCF 7 clearly states that the Old covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace:
IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
But Scripture teaches that Christ fulfilled the law as it had been given to Moses, not as it had been given to Adam prior to the Fall
Look at the passages you quoted Roger. None of those passages says that Christ's fulfilled the Old covenant law which was a covenant of works. It simply says he fulfilled the law. I agree with that. He did fulfill the law. The law he fulfilled was originally given to Adam as a covenant of works. It was republished in the law administration of the covenant of grace, in order to point back to our failure under the covenant of works. The sense in which Christ fulfilled the law is that he fulfilled it as the Second Adam. He fulfilled it as part of a covenant of works.
As I mentioned above, while the Covenant of Works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, the works "nature" of the law remained in effect even after it had been violated by Adam and republished by God on Mount Sinai.
This statement is very very close to what I have been saying about the Old covenant. In fact, except for the idea that the law has a works nature, I agree with this statement. I just don't know what you mean by the "works nature of the law."
The Covenant of Works didn't simply become null and void after the entrance of the Covenant of Grace. It remains in force throughout history. That's why Scripture teaches that we are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3).
I absolutely agree!
And I agree that the law as it was republished under Moses points back to the covenant of works. But I don't agree that the Old covenant is by nature a covenant of works. It is by nature a law administration of the one covenant of grace, as the Westminster divines taught.
Hi Jay,
I’ve enjoyed our conversation very much, and you have made some excellent points that have challenged my position. However, rather than continue our debate ad infinitum, I was hoping you’d check out the following article which I believe gets to the heart of our disagreement. It basically argues that there have been two prominent views regarding the Mosaic Covenant in historic Reformed theology. Your view is the first one discussed (if I’m not mistaken) and mine is the second -- although I may not have argued it very effectively! Here’s a summary of its main thesis:
“Study of the literature of the classic Reformed covenant theologians shows that there were two historic positions within mainstream Reformed covenant theology on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. The first position is that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially a gracious covenant administered in a legal manner. The second, quite widespread opinion is that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially a republication of the Adamic covenant of works. They held that the Mosaic Covenant was a “subservient covenant,” since it was not set up as a competing means of salvation but as subservient to the covenant of grace. Both historic Reformed positions held that there is a works aspect in the Mosaic administration, focused primarily on the Law’s function as a pedagogue to lead Israel to Christ.”
Anyway, if you get the time, read the article and let me know what you think.
Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Survey of Major Covenant Theologians
Take care and God bless!
In Christ,
Roger
I've enjoyed it too Roger! Thanks for the link and God bless.
Jay
Post a Comment