What's "NEW" about the New Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Separate from the above, if Moses was the only mediator of the Mosaic Covenant then no one would be saved or be lead to Christ by it. Moses evidently saw it differently. He pointed to Christ as the mediator between God and man. No one else is given that ultimate privilege. We can all pray and mediate as priests before God as the New Covenant Commands. If this was not true for the Old Covenant saints also in some form then why should they pray? God had a means. He set the rules. Christ was the promise and fulfillment in both testaments and Covenants. They are the same in substance if you ask me. But I am still working on it.
 
A part of the problem with our reading of Owen now is the fact that the theological disciplines are not incorporated the way they used to be and we also use different terms to the expressions which were common then. In brief, divines would speak one way dogmatically and another way exegetically. "Covenant of grace" is a dogmatic category and "new covenant" is an exegetical category

:up:

I hope Matthew Winzer does not mind if I expand a bit further on an important point he makes here. I place great importance on properly understand the covenant thought of Owen in particular for the very fact that he does, in fact, admit that he wants to state things differently than Calvin, Martyr and Bucanus, and because certain theological trends in the contemporary Reformed environment attempt to appropriate him as a precursor. I disagree with their assessment of Owen and find him to be operating within a fundamentally different framework, and accordingly think it important to allow the learned theologian to speak for himself.

As Matthew Winzer notes above, the exegetical nature of Owen's treatment of this topic in this context needs to be given its full weight; his emphasis on the historia salutis here is key, and must be understood within the context of his dogmatic framework. His discussion in v.6 on his interpretation of the word "established" needs to be studied carefully in order to understand what he hopes to do in this section. I note especially the following quotation: "What these two covenants, in general, are, we have declared, namely, that made with the church of Israel at Mt. Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it." Owen clearly picks up his "third covenant" language from Cameron and attempts to follow some basic insights he gained from him (and perhaps Cocceius' influence can, indeed, be felt - though I'm not sure to what extent), nevertheless I am not wholly convinced that - despite his acknowledged difference - the contours of his thought on this matter truly differ that much from established Reformed thought beyond the semantic level. He does not contrast, in truth, the Mosaic with the covenant of Grace a la Cameron as something preparatory and subservient thereunto, but rather contrasts the Mosaic with the Covenant of Grace as an historically realized reality with the fullness of its rites and rituals. I think this is key to satisfactorily understanding Owen's thought; and I believe, at least, when this is properly done, Owen may be allowed rightly to sit at the Reformed table on this topic. He brings differences, but I've grown more convinced that these differences are smaller than I have been led to believe in the past.

(Also, I find nothing in Owen that would lead me to believe he would not accept the seventh chapter of the WCF as the confession of his church.)
 
I hope Matthew Winzer does not mind if I expand a bit further on an important point he makes here.

Paul, Any insight you can bring to the discussion is always welcome. Thankyou for your very helpful analysis.
 
When Owen spoke plainly on the subject, he seemed clear enough:

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.

Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.
 
Raymond, Owen spoke very plainly and even more clearly in the quotes I have already provided, which were written 25 years after what you have quoted.

Paul:
I think it important to allow the learned theologian to speak for himself.

I couldn't agree more - which is why I have quoted him and allowed him to do so. Forgive me, but you'll have to flesh out your argument a bit more. I don't see how it shows I have misread Owen.

I note especially the following quotation: "What these two covenants, in general, are, we have declared, namely, that made with the church of Israel at Mt. Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it."...He does not contrast, in truth, the Mosaic with the covenant of Grace a la Cameron as something preparatory and subservient thereunto, but rather contrasts the Mosaic with the Covenant of Grace as an historically realized reality with the fullness of its rites and rituals.

I don't think you have offered a satisfactory explanation of what Owen has said. Yes, Owen is clear that what he is primarily discussing at length is the covenant of grace as it has been finally established in the new covenant at Christ's death, and comparing that with the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. And so while much of the contrasts he lists and expounds upon have to do with the establishment of the covenant of grace at the time of Christ, rather than from Gen 3, he still is very clear that the Old Covenant was not "an administration of the covenant of grace" during the time of Moses. He says that the Old Covenant was not inconsistent with the covenant of grace until the covenant of grace was established (the new covenant), but he is very clear that they were still separate. The covenant of grace existed as a promise during the Old Covenant, and the ordinances of the Old Covenant helped communicate the promise. But the covenant of grace, even "absolutely" considered, was not the Old Covenant.

It remains to the exposition of the words, to enquire just what the new covenant is of which our Lord Christ was the mediator. It can be no other but that*we call “the covenant of grace.” It is so called in contrast to “the covenant of works,” which was the one made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposed, and in every way inconsistent,*Romans 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise,*Revelation 13:8; And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.* ---for it was given on Christ’s interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here arises the first difficulty of the context, in two things; for, —

[1.] If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the LORD Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state as opposed to the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that while under the covenant of the law,*the Lord Christ was even then the mediator of that covenant of grace, which was from the beginning ?

[2.] If it is the covenant of grace which is intended (by the “new covenant”), and that is opposed to the covenant of works made with Adam, then surely the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.

The answer is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: nenomoqe>thtai, the meaning of which must be inquired into.

I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider the new covenant in its absolute sense (as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world), in the way of a promise; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly that the renovation of it made to Abraham was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law, *Galatians 3:17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the law. But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which therefore had to be removed out of the way.

To that end he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper under it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges with which they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things.

This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance to the church.

That which beforehad lain hidden in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hidden in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ.

It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar to it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship for the whole church, nothing else being admitted but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. From here on the other (old) covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the old covenant itself, but the whole system of sacred worship by which it was administered.

This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was added into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith.

When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a form of worship and privileges expressive of it. It was therefore then consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, (and those composed into a yoke of bondage) which belonged not to it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to conformed to it. Then it was established. Hence, in answer to the second difficulty, it follows that as a promise, it was opposed to the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that of Sinai. This legalizing of it, or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship belonging to it, accomplished this alteration.

(Also, I find nothing in Owen that would lead me to believe he would not accept the seventh chapter of the WCF as the confession of his church.)

I am honestly perplexed at how you can say this. Can you elaborate for me? He is very clear that he disagrees with WCF 7.6. Are you simply saying he would accept it as the confession of his church even though he disagreed with it and taught against it?
 
Mr. Adams,

Owen's position is complex, but careful attention to his definitions allows us to safely navigate between the Scylla of reading Owen as fully in line with the standard Reformed position of his day, and the Charybdis of placing too thick a wall between him and his contemporaries.

I am working right now, and so have neither the time nor ability to quote material for you, but please accept this as a preliminary answer - we need to recognize when Owen is speaking of "covenant" abstractly and when concretely. This is one key place wherein the distinction surfaces which Matthew Winzer and I noted concerning exegetical and dogmatic theology. In this exegesis Owen is attempting to deal seriously with the organic logic and interior progression of the epistle itself (not with broad, general dogmatic categories), in which the logic of the text speaks of two "covenants." So as not to contradict the dogmatic framework within which he works (which mandates one covenant of grace from the time of the promise to Adam), he feels he must exegetically reject in the context of expounding this epistle the dogmatic and abstract definition of covenant, and instead restrict himself to a definition which makes "Covenant" an historical event (In other words, one can see how this firm exegetical disjunction actually and ironically can help preserve the dogmatic unity of the covenant of grace). Thus, when speaking concretely and specifically in this sense, it would be nonsense to speak of "a different covenant" (i.e., the Mosaic covenant) "administering" this "covenant." As an historical reality, a "covenant" cannot be separated from its concrete administration, simply for the fact that such a covenant involves the ceremonial rule; in the abstract, however, it can have different administrations. Accordingly, when speaking in this exegetical context, the Mosaic covenant cannot be "an administration" of the Covenant of Grace, but rather it "administers the promises and comminations thereof." This allows Owen to do exegetical justice to the organic logic of the epistle (which requires a contrast of two different covenants), while maintaining his dogmatic allegience to the fact that the Mosaic covenant is that whereby the promises, stipulations, and terms of God's gracious dealings with mankind ("covenant") were administered in history to the Judaic church-under-age in Christ.

I love the extended passage which you quoted in your post - it speaks of the Covenant of Grace "invisibly putting forth it efficacy under types and shadows." That single sentence (which you bolded) I think is one of the best statements in Owen's commentary for explaining his thought on the matter. The Mosaic covenant administered the "stuff" of the Covenant of Grace (that is, the substance of the covenant - which, in the dogmatic sense IS the covenant) by a rigid and legal economy until the time of freedom should come wherein the "Covenant of Grace" (in its exegetical, historical sense) is established.

As to your confusion regarding how I could state that I see no evidence that Owen's theology is in tension with WCF, all it takes is one look at a statement such as Vic quoted above.
 
When Owen spoke plainly on the subject, he seemed clear enough:

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.

Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.

Well noted! As far as I know there is no repudiation of this view in later writings of Owen. And as there is nothing in the Hebrews commentary which contradicts this position there is no reason to conjecture a change of mind later in life.
 
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."

Martin, I would be interested to know *specifically* where this article goes wrong in your opinion. Thanks.
 
Owen's position is complex, but careful attention to his definitions allows us to safely navigate between the Scylla of reading Owen as fully in line with the standard Reformed position of his day, and the Charybdis of placing too thick a wall between him and his contemporaries.

So long as we keep in mind that Owen himself intentionally built that wall.

So as not to contradict the dogmatic framework within which he works (which mandates one covenant of grace from the time of the promise to Adam), he feels he must exegetically reject in the context of expounding this epistle the dogmatic and abstract definition of covenant, and instead restrict himself to a definition which makes "Covenant" an historical event

I understand you don't have time right now, but you will need to show me where Owen says this - that he is not addressing anything dogmatically in his commentary - otherwise it's you asserting your opinion. When Owen specifically quotes the dogmatic, not exegetical, text of the WCF, and says he disagrees with it, I think you have little ground to stand on for your argument.

Thus, when speaking concretely and specifically in this sense, it would be nonsense to speak of "a different covenant" (i.e., the Mosaic covenant) "administering" this "covenant." As an historical reality, a "covenant" cannot be separated from its concrete administration, simply for the fact that such a covenant involves the ceremonial rule; in the abstract, however, it can have different administrations.

What you have just offered is not the reason Owen offers for rejecting WCF 7.6. Owen rejects the idea that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace because he denies it has anything to do with eternal life, not simply because it occurred in time before the new covenant.

But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.
...
This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.

administers the promises and comminations thereof

Can you provide the context for this quote when you have time?

while maintaining his dogmatic allegience to the fact that the Mosaic covenant is that whereby the promises, stipulations, and terms of God's gracious dealings with mankind ("covenant") were administered in history to the Judaic church-under-age in Christ.

Again, please provide the exact quotation from Owen on this point. This is expressly denied by Owen in what I have quoted.

The Mosaic covenant administered the "stuff" of the Covenant of Grace (that is, the substance of the covenant

Again, you are asserting what Owen expressly rejects. He says the Mosaic covenant is not of the same substance as the covenant of grace. He quotes the view you just stated ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ and then rejects it.

As to your confusion regarding how I could state that I see no evidence that Owen's theology is in tension with WCF, all it takes is one look at a statement such as Vic quoted above.

While closing your eyes when reading where Owen says his rejects it 25 years later?

Well noted! As far as I know there is no repudiation of this view in later writings of Owen. And as there is nothing in the Hebrews commentary which contradicts this position there is no reason to conjecture a change of mind later in life.

Yes, all who were ever saved were saved by the same covenant, and it is not and never was the Old Covenant, according to Owen. "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect."
 
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."

Martin, I would be interested to know *specifically* where this article goes wrong in your opinion. Thanks.

Stephen, just read through the posts. I specifically have a disagreement with the works paradigm in the Mosaic.

BTW, I believe Owen is irrelevant to the discussion here now as is Kline. Maybe I am wrong but I believe they both are incorrect.
 
Yes, all who were ever saved were saved by the same covenant, and it is not and never was the Old Covenant, according to Owen. "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect."

Then there is no discrepancy with the Westminster Confession.
 
For what it's worth D.G. Hart thinks it significant that the aforementioned parts of the WCF were omitted from the LBCF. (He doesn't mention that the LBCF does insert different language at 7.3) But it's more interesting that the LBCF, as is often the case when they differ, is closer to the Savoy here, which perhaps he didn't bother to check because who really holds to it today? Surely no one in The Gospel Coalition. But there are few if any who could subscribe to the LBCF ex animo either.

Actually, the covenant of grace as taught in Reformed confessions like that of the OPC has no trouble recognizing differences between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, the real flattening out took place when Baptists convened in London in 1689 to revise the affirmations of the Westminster Assembly and proceeded to delete important portions of the chapter (seven) on the covenant of grace, like the following:
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

(Otherwise, aside from not quite reading Wellum accurately in my opinion (not to mention that he probably couldn't subscribe to parts of the LBCF anyway) most of the article is about things that anyone who has been paying attention didn't already know. Who didn't know that JT was baptistic? :doh: )

Well, I can at least agree with DGH that Reformed isn't a good word for Baptists to use, particularly without modification.
 
Last edited:
Stephen, have you read anything through this thread? They hold to basically a Klinean understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. That is what I disagree with. Read through the thread.
 
Stephen, have you read anything through this thread? They hold to basically a Klinean understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. That is what I disagree with. Read through the thread.

Yes, many times but still confused in relation to the Renihan article. I know Micah Renihan and a close friend with his father who is professor at IRBS at WSC and taught his sons. IRBS tends to follow Owen in seeing the Mosaic covenant as a National Covenant (rather than a formal C of W or C of G). Jim Renihan teaches this strongly. Hence my question re how the Kline criticism applies to the Renihan article?
 
I read through the article Stephen and Kline is referenced quite a bit. It has been a few days since I read it so I can't give you specifics at this time. Kline's thought concerning the Mosaic is not where the Westminster Confession lands nor is Owen's position if I understand the distinctions correctly. They both hold to a works principle concerning the Mosaic that I do not believe is sound. Both hold to some form of republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant. I fully believe that the substance of the Mosaic and New Covenant are the same. They are both fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace. We have discussed this issue quite a bit recently on the PB. Just type in Kline or republication in the search and you should be able to see what we have discussed. I hope that helps. Kline's prodigies are out at Westminster Theological Seminary California (Not to be confused with Westminster Philadelphia). So the connection fits. After all that is where Dr. Renihan teaches.
 
Yes, it is worth more reflection from a Reformed Baptist position. I might discuss it with Dr Renihan when he is here in New Zealand next year.
 
Just a quick recap to solidify understanding:
a presbyterian perspective: the New Covenant is new in its administration, namely, the method of entry and breadth of covenant inclusion while maintaining its earthly and temporal character.
an RB perspective: the New Covenant is new in its membership, namely, the elect, saved by grace through faith, and does not maintain an earthly or temporal character.

how's that as a summary?
 
I think you're focusing on the world "New" too much. God's establishment of covenants is based upon pre-existing ovenants so, as an example, when God established a covenant with Noah, it was not a completely "new" covenant. It was an administration of the Covenant of Grace begun in Gen 3. The word, established, is actually key to understanding that a Covenant is already in place whereas many might assume it means that something completely new with Noah has been inaugurated.

I think there is a proclivity for some to focus on the word New and "...not like the one I made..." and then assume that the main aspect of inquiry ought to be to determine points of difference between what came before as if the nature of the New Covenant can be understood primarily by where it differs. The NC is then lined up with the OC and each column draws out the differences that are discernible and the nature of the New Covenant is thought to be understood as it differs from the Old. There is little focus on the continuity and even aspects of the New Covenant are ignored because they don't fit the paradigm of "brand new" or "completely different" that many are looking for. Furthermore, even in focusing on the perceived differences, the substantial "sameness" is scarcely considered.

The Covenant of Grace is made with the elect in Christ. There's nothing "New" about the idea that the elect, in Christ, are in the CoG in the NC but the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are incredibly important characteristics of the New Covenant that were only shadowed for the saints of old.

The same Seed is the object of our faith. They possessed the Gospel of a coming Seed. We possess the Gospel that looks back at redemption having been accomplished.

There are many different ways that the New Covenant is distinguishable and more excellent than previous administrations. Part of the problem is that many begin with the issue of who ought to be baptized and Covenant Theology is then backed into or interests are controlled by the concern about whether a particular issue of the Covenant either confirms or challenges their view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top