Pastor Rich...
Perhaps you can help me with something. I have read some of Owen's comments on this, but I cannot for the life of me figure why he says that the old covenant is not an administration when He leaves the Savoy in the original language of the WCF. So which is it for him? Did he write his commentary on Hebrews prior to the Savoy, or after? I haven't had much luck finding this out.
Why, if it is not so plain, would the Westminister divines be able to agree on one covenant various administrations? And what of Calvin? (quoted here from the Institutes, Chapter 10.)
[quote:da4b6c9de8]1. From what has been said above, it must now be clear, that all whom, from the beginning of the world, God adopted as his peculiar people, were taken into covenant with him on the same conditions, and under the same bond of doctrine, as ourselves; but as it is of no small importance to establish this point, I will here add it by way of appendix, and show, since the Fathers were partakers with us in the same inheritance, and hoped for a common salvation through the grace of the same Mediator, how far their condition in this respect was different from our own. For although the passages which we have collected from the Law and the Prophets for the purpose of proof, make it plain that there never was any other rule of piety and religion among the people of God; yet as many things are written on the subject of the difference between the Old and New Testaments in a manner which may perplex ordinary readers, it will be proper here to devote a special place to the better and more exact discussion of this subject. This discussion, which would have been most useful at any rate, has been rendered necessary by that monstrous miscreant, Servetus, and some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who think of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine, absurdly imagining that the Lord gorged them with temporal blessings here, and gave them no hope of a blessed immortality. Let us guard pious minds against this pestilential error, while we at the same time remove all the difficulties which are wont to start up when mention is made of the difference between the Old and the New Testaments. By the way also, let us consider what resemblance and what difference there is between the covenant which the Lord made with the Israelites before the advent of Christ, and that which he has made with us now that Christ is manifested.
2. It is possible, indeed, to explain both in one word. The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs. But because this brief summary is insufficient to give any one a full understanding of the subject, our explanation to be useful must extend to greater length. It were superfluous, however, in showing the similarity, or rather identity, of the two dispensations, again to treat of the particulars which have already been discussed, as it were unseasonable to introduce those which are still to be considered elsewhere. What we propose to insist upon here may be reduced to three heads:-First, That temporal opulence and felicity was not the goal to which the Jews were invited to aspire, but that they were admitted to the hope of immortality, and that assurance of this adoption was given by immediate communications, by the Law and by the Prophets. Secondly, That the covenant by which they were reconciled to the Lord was founded on no merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God, who called them; and, thirdly, That they both had and knew Christ the Mediator, by whom they were united to God, and made capable of receiving his promises. The second of these, as it is not yet perhaps sufficiently understood, will be fully considered in its own place (Book 3 chap. 15-18). For we will prove by many clear passages in the Prophets, that all which the Lord has ever given or promised to his people is of mere goodness and indulgence. The third also has, in various places, been not obscurely demonstrated. Even the first has not been left unnoticed.
5. Nay, the Apostle makes the Israelites our equals, not only in the grace of the covenant, but also in the signification of the Sacraments. For employing the example of those punishments, which the Scripture states to have been of old inflicted on the Jews, in order to deter the Corinthians from falling into similar wickedness, he begins with premising that they have no ground to claim for themselves any privilege which can exempt them from the divine vengeance which overtook the Jews, since the Lord not only visited them with the same mercies, but also distinguished his grace among them by the same symbols: as if he had said, If you think you are out of danger, because the Baptism which you received, and the Supper of which you daily partake, have excellent promises, and if, in the meantime, despising the goodness of God, you indulge in licentiousness, know that the Jews, on whom the Lord inflicted his severest judgments, possessed similar symbols. They were baptised in passing through the sea, and in the cloud which protected them from the burning heat of the sun. It is said, that this passage was a carnal baptism, corresponding in some degree to our spiritual baptism. But if so, there would be a want of conclusiveness in the argument of the Apostle, whose object is to prevent Christians from imagining that they excelled the Jews in the matter of baptism. Besides, the cavil cannot apply to what immediately follows-viz. that they did "all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:3, 4).[/quote:da4b6c9de8]
Witsius, in the Economy, Book III, Chapter III, states that the OT ceremonies were not without their significance and that they foreshadowed all that was to come. In the sense that they represented Christ, they were effectual to the believer in the Old Testament. Hence, he concludes, just as Calvin did, that there is but one covenant with various administrations.
You are correct in that Witsius does not count the Sinaitic covenant as the covenant of works. But he does not deny that it is part and parcel of the covenant of grace.
If the OT ceremonies had no other use than to foreshadow Christ, if He was really not present in them, then why did God even bother? I understand their tutor aspect, but since they were not shown the Glory of Christ in His revelation, why perform the rites if they did not signify and seal the same thing in the OT as the once for all sacrifice of Christ in the NT?
Further, what was not gracious in God providing the sacrificial system? What makes that administration not of grace? John says that we are given grace for grace, placing the Mosaic economy squarely within a gracious frame.
The OT economy cannot remain a tertium quid. We know it was not a covenant of works. If it was, it was a covenant given by God who had no intention of accepting any work as sufficient. So what is left? It was either made with gracious promises, or it was not. In the end, it is all about God's redemption of His fallen creatures, therefore we must conclude that it is an administration of the covenant of grace.
Owen had to have agreed with that at some point. I know Calvin and Witsius, along with all the Westminster Assembly did.
In Christ,
KC
