Some concluding thoughts on the Mosaic covenant in Reformed orthodoxy
Michael Brown
in Covenant Theology, Mosaic Covenant, Reformed Orthodoxy
|
4 Comments
For the two or three people in the universe who may have read the brief survey I offered of the views of the Mosaic covenant by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed writers, I want to make a few concluding observations:
First, it is important for us to understand that any interaction with the covenant theology of the Reformed orthodox must take into serious consideration the wide variety of their views regarding Sinai and its place in the historia salutis, as well as their variegated interpretive nuances. As with other doctrines, there was not a monolithic unity among the Reformed orthodox on this point. There were, instead, an assortment of formulations on how the Mosaic covenant related to the covenant of works, covenant of grace, and new covenant.
As I have shown, some writers held that the works-principle in Sinai pertained only to the outward, legal administration and “accidents” of the covenant of grace as it was expressed in the Mosaic economy (i.e. Calvin, Ursinus, Ames, Ball, Rutherford, Dickson, Calamy, Burgess, and Turretin). Others saw the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works and a covenant distinct from yet pedagogical for the covenant of grace (i.e. Olevianus, Rollock, Perkins, Polanus, Wollebius, Sibbes, Strong, Fisher, Usher, and Owen). Still others viewed it as a third-type of covenant (neither of works or grace) subservient to the covenant of grace (i.e. Bolton). Within each of these camps, there existed a variety of complex nuances regarding the number of covenants and how Sinai should be viewed in relation to the covenants of works and grace. Thus, the views of the Reformed orthodox on this point cannot be reduced to a single paradigm or simplistically delineated into a mere two or three different positions.
This error was made by E.F. Kevan in his The Grace of Law: A Study of Puritan Theology (1964, repr. Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria, 1993) in which he delineated only two schools of Puritan thought on Sinai, one that saw it as a covenant of works and the other of grace. Yet, others, in their attempts to refute Kevan, have not done much better. (See Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 27-28. See also Don Strickland, “E.F. Kevan, Samuel Petto and Covenant Theology,” Reformation Today, No.137, January 1994.)
The above is an important point to grasp because too often Reformed people today assume that views of the Mosaic covenant are monolithic in our tradition. I have heard people talk about only two positions: “The Westminster view (i.e. two covenants)” v. “The Saumur view (i.e. three covenants),” as if those are the only categories. I have heard people talk about the modern views being either the “Murray view” or the “Kline view,” as if those are the only choices. I have even heard (recently) of the “URC view” v. the “OPC view,” a dichotomy that baffles me because I know there is no such thing. While there are certainly general trajectories that can be followed in say, what is expressed in the WCF v. what is expressed by Saumur, or in where Murray went v. where Kline went regarding the Mosaic, the bottom line is that this is that, in our tradition, from the era of confessional codification and orthodoxy, the question of Sinai’s relation to the covenant of works, covenant of grace, and new covenant, has always been a complex one and a wide variety of views and nuances have been tolerated.
That brings me to the other observation I want to make: while the Reformed orthodox trajectories on the Mosaic covenant were many, they remained within the bounds of their own confessional codification of the early Reformation’s interpretation of Paul’s gospel. The boundaries of our confessional standards are the boundaries of our toleration. As the Reformed orthodox developed a sophisticated federal theology in response to the challenges of their day (i.e. Socinianism, Arminianism, and Roman Catholicism), they maintained a clear consensus concerning their understanding of God’s one plan of salvation in the one postlapsarian covenant of grace. They also consistently upheld their law-gospel antithesis by sharply distinguishing between the covenants of works and grace.
So, what do you think? Was Sinai a covenant of works, grace, or both?
Reader Comments (4)
Pastor Brown,
Thanks so much for your survey of the Reformed views on the Mosaic covenant. I plan on referring back to this in the future.
I hope you don't mind me posing a question I've had for quite a long time: is it fair to say that Owen and Bolton (and the others that held similar positions, whom you listed above) held views that contradict WCF 7.5, which identifies the old covenant with the covenant of grace?
Zac
Pastor Brown,
Thank you so much, again, for this series. I too will return to it often. I was particularly interested in one of the last fellows reviewed - Samuel Petto. I would like to hear/read/see more about him and his views. Where do you think I should start?
To answer your question, I think there are elements of works and grace in the "Mosaic economy". Works, however, weren't for salvation but for keeping their place in the land - the throwback to Eden, and Israel viewed as another 'son' of God bring a real depth to this idea, I think. But I also thought there was much merit (pun, intended) in Petto's view that it was a covenant of works for Christ to keep in order to 'merit' his glory-reward, and our covenant of grace ("Works for Christ, grace for us"). How majestic! That there were sacrifices necessary meant that there was a (violated) works principle involved - and yet, that the sacrificial system was included meant that there was a principle of grace interwoven as well.
I have a lot more reading and thinking to do on this, but this very clear, concise, and may I say very engaging series has really inspired me to dig a little deeper into the history of this discussion. So...hm...where to go from here...?
Thanks again,
Aron G
(OPC, Hackettstown, NJ)
Zac,
Sorry for not responding sooner. I usually make Sunday and Monday internet-free days.
I don't think that Owen and Bolton would consider their views as contradicting the WCF. Bolton, as I am sure you know, was a member of the Westminster Assembly. And Owen, while not a member of the WA (he was a little too young at the time) was the chief arcitect of the Savoy Declaration, which was a modified version of the WCF. The Savoy maintained the exact language of WCF 7.5. Owen simply believed that the Mosaic covenant was superimposed upon the covenant of grace (see Owen's Works, Vol 22, pp70-113). Like Bolton, he saw the Mosaic as subservient to the covenant of grace, as well as a republication of teh covt of works through its commands, sanctions, and reward for obedience.
So, I think there is more than one way to understand the Mosaic covenant as "an administration of the covenant of grace." That is very broad language upon which many writers holding different views could agree. It allows for different nuances about the Mosaic in its more strict sense.
Aron,
I am happy to hear that you took special interest in Petto. Very few people are familiar with his work on covenant theology. He makes some ver interesting and important points about the Mosaic that strongly uphold the active obedience of Christ and the have great implications regarding justification sola fide. I hope more people will read his work.
He only wrote one book on covenant theology, so that is the book I'd read. It was originally published in 1674, reprinted in 1820, and recently reprinted again (just in 2007) by a small publisher called Tentmaker: http://tentmaker.org.uk/content/?p=76
I should have a book out analyzing Petto's covenant theology (particularly his view of teh Mosaic and its implications for justification) hopefully sometime next year. So you might look for that in teh future. I should also have two journal articles on Petto published next year, so you might look for those as well.
Regarding your answer, I think you are on exactly the right track. Considered strictly and in itself, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of law and works for Israel's tenure in the land. After all, they take an oath as a people to keep all of its conditions (Ex 19), which is quite opposite of the Abrahamic covenant, in which God took an oath and promised to fulfill the conditions (Gen 12 and 15). Yet, the Mosaic was added (Gal 3) to the Abrahamic/covenant of grace to act as a tutor or pedagogue to drive people to the One who would fulfill all of its conidtions: Christ, the Lord who became the Servant of the covenant. And you are exaclty right: salvation never came through the law/Mosaic covenant, but always through faith alone in Christ alone, the Mediator of the one uninterrupted covenant of grace.