Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Covenant of Works was what God had instituted between himself and Adam/Eve, so if they kept his commands, kept eternal life and right standing with Him.Talk to me like I am 10 years old here:
-How are these two terms different?
The fullness and completeness of the Covenant of Grace was at the time of Jesus though, as in the New Covenant, correct?I will offer a modest dissent, and say that I am of those who think that the primary use (i.e. the Mosaic terms of covenant) should be the understood reference for "Old Covenant," unless some broader notion is intentionally attached to the words.
The covenant of works has one, and only one, proper referent namely the pre-fall relationship between God and Man. An acceptable, but improper reference may be made to the idea of a restated (republished) covenant of works in connection to Sinai, given that the language "do and live" is present; albeit in an attenuated sense. In no sense is it correct to infer that the covenant of works was reinstated at any time after the fall.
The language of "old" covenant originates from the well-known passage Jeremiah 31:31-32, which is the promise of a "new" covenant, contrasted with what is come before, specifically the Sinatic. Ergo, the Siniatic is formally the old-covenant; and this conclusion is borne out by 2Cor3:14 which reads, "Their minds were hardened, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted." The reading of the Law of Moses was a regular religious exercise of covenant-remembrance/renewal.
By an imprecise extension, we could extend "old covenant" to include the full range of pre-Christ covenanting--with the exclusion of the covenant of works. And in fact, this is how much conversation goes. It is a way of referring I was for a long time accustomed to using. But, now I see the need for greater precision. "Old Testament" is a better way to refer to omnibus covenants before the coming of Jesus. This is the heritage which Jesus Christ obtains, and it takes up the whole of redemptive history up to the hour of his coming.
The connection of the Christ-covenant (new) with Abraham's covenant (per Galatians, Romans, 2Corinthians, etc.) is fundamental, and we must have a way to keep the contrasts in view that arise from the intermediate administration of Moses, and not obscure them by our casual and undefined use of terms.
This view, therefore, makes "Covenant of Grace" a title proper to the whole of Scripture conceived as covenant-documentation, and that at any time of its collection. It is proper now to think of it as contained in the Old and New Testaments; just as before the coming of Christ, it was proper to think of it as contained in the Tanakh.
Have you heard of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, by JRR Tolkien?The fullness and completeness of the Covenant of Grace was at the time of Jesus though, as in the New Covenant, correct?
All of biblical history comes to one climax at the birth and life of Jesus, as that was when the Covenant of Grace become fully realized under the New Covenant, and the summation of that salvation history will be at the Second Coming event, and the New heavens/New Earth then in place.Have you heard of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, by JRR Tolkien?
Assuming you have, imagine if someone makes a statement like this:
"...But the fullness and completeness of The Lord of the Rings comes in the text of "The Return of the King."Sure, that's the book where all the threads of the previous two volumes come together; and let's throw in The Hobbit along with them. There is definitely a climax and resolution there.
Nevertheless, by no reasonable assessment may it be said that the previous volumes are not the very essence of the overall title of the compendium. No one should assert: the real story begins only as Aragorn at last rises up against all opposition and his own fears to do or die as the True King.
The Covenant of Grace is the story of God's striving to make and redeem a forever-people for his glory and their good. Yes, that story reaches its moment of triumph in the Person of Jesus Christ. But getting to Jesus makes having him in Person that much more real. He isn't just an "insertion" into history; he's the Meaning of ALL history; and the scarlet thread of the revealed purposes of God in bringing him forth--at just the time and place--is the OT narrative.
Those saved By God under the old Covenant experience salvation as we under the new Covenant do, as in both cases, due to the Cross of Christ, but the fullness as in all believers having the Holy spirit residing in them, and we now have all spiritual blessings in Christ, as those under the old One were rooted more into physical/temporal blessings from God.Not sure if you are attempting words of agreement or disagreement. But anyway, "fully realizing" the Covenant of Grace only in the New Covenant sounds to my ears like language that leaves Abraham out of it, as if he had a less-than-fully-realized experience of the Covenant of Grace. Which I deny, as a WCF guy.
"Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited,... in them [Word & sacraments] it [the Covenant of Grace] is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy.... There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7.6.
An OT saint had all the Holy Spirit that was needful for him, i.e. he was a full as he could be under the circumstances; this gift being beside any special indwelling. There was certainly more to be had in due time (NT). Also, the OT saint had all spiritual blessings in Christ, Jn.8:56; Gal.3:9; there's never been any other way to have them. The notion that spiritual blessings in OT times were "rooted" in physical things is really to treat the ancients like "primitives."
Barely above animals, they snuffle about and latch onto trinkets and baubles scattered on the ground that sparkle with caught-light. But for a select few who, curious, raise their heads to connect the sparkle with that great sun above; the majority merely root and rut and contend for the biggest pile of shiny-things. The few who have gained insight are no more primitives, but advanced, and spiritual. It is a ladder built from earth to heaven. This can result in nothing but pride.
If spiritual blessings aren't rooted in earthly things at all, but coming out of heaven are themselves promised and then attached to temporal signs which purpose is to raise the eyes to heaven: that notion is ennobling, and considers man as he was created to be. We need God in heaven to reach down to us on earth and raise us to himself.
Man has fallen, but he is still the image of God. He will either work to cast off that image in order to descend further into depravity; or he will accept the signs and the God of them. One direction is death, the other life.
Why is it called an old covenant and new covenant if it is all part of the one covenant of grace? It is not called a dispensation of a covenant or a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace, but is simply called a covenant.
The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…
Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended.
(Hebrews 8:6 commentary)
Do you see the OC believers as having exactly same spiritual blessings as we do now under the NC?That is a good question that led Owen to reject Calvin and Westminster's formulation. He saw them as two different covenants.
That is a good question that led Owen to reject Calvin and Westminster's formulation. He saw them as two different covenants.
Owen saw the covenant at Sinai having the same substance of the CoG
Yet, this has particularly to do with the apostolic intent for pursing the distinction. It is not, in Owen's view, an absolute way of viewing the two covenants, under which evaluation they were but administratively distinct.The last paragraph of page 714 and top of page 715 Owen says although the way of salvation is the same between the two covenants they are still two distinct covenants and with differing substance.
You might look into testamentary language. In such a case, the thing that is different is the testament.Why is it called an old covenant and new covenant if it is all part of the one covenant of grace? It is not called a dispensation of a covenant or a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace, but is simply called a covenant.
Having re-read that part of Owen for the 50th (exaggeration) time in my life, I think I finally understand him, and I came to the same conclusion that you have stated in your post. Indeed, I'm tempted to say Owen is basically Westminsterian in his understanding. His Exercitations show he believed in an external administration of the covenant of grace that was administered all the way throughout history after the Fall; they also show he believed the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace with some things annexed to it (like temporal promises); and he goes over various definitions of the word "covenant," showing that it can sometimes be used to refer to an absolute promise. Furthermore, in other places of his Hebrews commentary and in the Exercitations, Owen refers to the covenant of grace being a promise; that types have the gospel (and so administer grace); that the sacraments of the OT administer the same grace as that of the NT (p. 723-724, where Owen also denies that the OT was interested in externals only). As the Westminster Confession says, the CoG was administered in the OT by promises, types, and sacraments, etc. It seems like his idea of "legal establishment" is what Westminster means by "administration." The law and other externals (which of themselves adminster no grace) used in a subserviant or subordinate way to the "promise" (i.e., what we call the covenant of grace) is in line with Westminster, so long as the types, etc., are viewed as adminstering the covenant of grace.I certainly second all the commendation to read Owen for oneself.
According to Owen, the difference is in *HOW* the new covenant is considered vis a vis the old, in the course of the apostle's argument. Considered absolutely, or considered in relation to its legal establishment? Only in respect to the latter does Owen (after the apostle) set the covenants old and new at odds. Only in this respect does he describe these two as having distinct "natures."
Thanks.Read this Pergy...
THE FAITHFUL COVENANTER
Richard Sibbes
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/covenant-testament-works-grace-love-and-communion/
Also look for Reverend Winzer's discussions on what testament is on the PB.