The Two Covenants? (WCF)

Kim G · #1 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:33 AM

My husband and I have been reading the WCF after our Bible study together. I have a question regarding covenants.

The WCF states that the first covenant was a covenant of works which Adam broke. The second covenant was (is) the covenant of grace. I like the way this brings together the people of God, both OT and NT.

However, Jeremiah 31 seems to differentiate between the covenant that the Israelites had in the OT (the "Old Covenant) with the coming in the book of Hebrews of the NT (the "New Covenant") which was ratified by Christ's blood.

Can someone help me understand how this works together?

BobVigneault · #2 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:49 AM

Kim, we would say that it is one covenant (the same from OT to NT) but two different administrations. How did the benefits and revelation and disposing of the covenant change from Old to New?

The old saw shadows and signs as through a glass dimly, the new saw Christ in his fullness. The Cross is the full revelation of God's attributes and spoke about in the OT. This is the brief answer - one covenant, old and new administrations.

CaseyBessette · #3 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim G

However, Jeremiah 31 seems to differentiate between the covenant that the Israelites had in the OT (the "Old Covenant) with the coming in the book of Hebrews of the NT (the "New Covenant") which was ratified by Christ's blood.

Can someone help me understand how this works together?

The WCF explains that the covenant of grace has two primary administrations -- and those two administrations are contrasted in Jeremiah 31. Section 5 deals with the OT administration, section 6 with the NT administration.

WCF Chapter 7

5. This covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] 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.

Kim G · #4 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 10:14 AM

Okay, one covenant, two administrations. That makes sense.

Yet the Bible refers to these two different "administrations" as "covenants." Why did the WCF not adopt the biblical terminology? It seems confusing to talk about two "covenants" (works and grace) that are not specifically called covenants in the Bible, and then talk about two "administrations" that are called covenants in the Bible.

I get what each part of the covenants and administrations mean. I just wonder why the terminology is different. Kind of like, "Why do people park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?"

CaseyBessette · #5 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:16 AM

Yeah, it can be confusing.

But it's not wrong to speak of the two administrations as covenants. They are. But they're covenants (the old and new) that are so closely linked that, essentially, they are one covenant.

The WCF, though, is using very specific and precise theological language. The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, but the concept is there. The phrases "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are the same -- the actual phrases aren't used, but the concept is there in Scripture.

We could something similar about the word "justification." In the WCF (and when we speak about justification most of the time), there is a very specific meaning in mind -- it's a technical term. And the word "justification" is used in Scripture with that meaning. But in the Bible, the word "justification" can also be used in different ways with different meanings (consider Paul's use in contrast to Peter's use -- they aren't talking about the same kind of "justification").

PuritanCovenanter · #6 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:29 AM

There is one Covenant of Grace administered in different administrations of this over arching Covenant. The Covenants of Promise which led up to the New Covenant are from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Christ is the Promised seed who fulfilled the Abrahamic seed promised. And He instituted the New Covenant in His blood, but they are all tied together in the administration of the Covenant of Grace which was announced to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15.

I really like the Westminster here.

Quote:

7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance (Gal_2:17), 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 (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20; 1Co_11:23-25): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy (Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34; Heb_12:22-28), 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 (Psa_32:1; Act_15:11; Rom_3:21-23; Rom_4:3, Rom_4:6, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17, Rom_4:23, Rom_4:24; Gal_3:14, Gal_3:16; Heb_13:8).

Christusregnat · #7 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:47 AM

Kim,

One thought to keep in mind is that the word "new" (as in "new covenant") does not mean brand-spankin new, but renewed. The Greek term "neos" means new in time, just arrived, like "I have a new job". The Greek term "kai-nay" generally means something that has been renewed, as in "I've got a new attitude" (IOW I've got my good attitude back).

In the OT, God made a covenant with David; was it not part of the OC? God made a covenant with Josiah; was it not part of the OC? God made a covenant with Abraham, etc. So even though there was but one covenant of grace, there were many administrations of it even in what we would call the "Old Covenant". Each covenant built on the foundation that was previously laid.

This is why, to answer your specific question about Jeremiah 31, God explicitly says that He will make this covenant "with the house of Judah and the house of Israel". The difference in Jeremiah 31 is the response of the people, and the wide-spread diffusion of His saving grace. The parties to the covenant don't change, but the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is greater.

One Christ, one gospel, one means of justification, on Spirit of God, one Father of all, etc.

The covenant has been renewed in Christ, and enlarged, just as the covenant was renewed and enlarged in the "Old Testament" times, as note above.

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim G

My husband and I have been reading the WCF after our Bible study together. I have a question regarding covenants.

The WCF states that the first covenant was a covenant of works which Adam broke. The second covenant was (is) the covenant of grace. I like the way this brings together the people of God, both OT and NT.

However, Jeremiah 31 seems to differentiate between the covenant that the Israelites had in the OT (the "Old Covenant) with the coming in the book of Hebrews of the NT (the "New Covenant") which was ratified by Christ's blood.

Can someone help me understand how this works together?

Scott1 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 12:07 PM

It has helped me to understand that salvation for the people of God has always been by grace, through faith in Christ.

In the Old Testament, looking toward the promised Messiah, Redeemer (Jesus).

In the New Testament, looking back at the promised, risen Savior (Jesus).

In Luke 24:27:

Quote:

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."

Christ is explaining that Moses and the Prophets (and in some translations, also the Psalms) were all talking about HIM.

In Hebrews 11:26

Quote:

"He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward."

This is speaking of Moses.

So, clearly, Moses was looking in faith toward Jesus for his salvation. Not as much was revealed about Christ, more and more was progressively revealed about Christ, but enough for Moses to put faith in the promised Christ and be saved- just like we do in the New Testament.

You will find this "continuity" makes much more sense of the Bible as a whole. We owe a great debt to the Reformers for this. Dispensationalism as a system breaks this up and tends to render most of the Old Testament irrelevant.

Contra_Mundum · #9 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:05 PM

I only have one little point to make.
Regarding the "linguistic argument" that asserts a qualitative nuance to "new" depending on the word used: it would be more accurate to describe this as an example of the lexical fallacy. We don't decide what the "new" covenant is all about on the basis of typical word usage. There was no "inviolable rule" in Greek culture or language (any more than we have such "rules", but only conventional and variable usage) that different words for "new" made that kind of "fine" distinction. Perhaps we can find a general category of use, but it is never more than general.

FURTHERMORE (!) I give you two separate references to the NEW COVENANT, from the same book of the Bible, that use first one term, and then the other! Compare the Greek of Heb. 8:13 (kainos), and Heb. 12:24 (neos).

Peter H · #10 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:10 PM

Would it be incorrect to boil this down to: The old Testament saints were saved in Christ who was to come, and the New Testament saints in Christ who did come?

InevitablyReformed · #11 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter H

Would it be incorrect to boil this down to: The old Testament saints were saved in Christ who was to come, and the New Testament saints in Christ who did come?

Sounds good to me.

Christusregnat · #12 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 08:46 PM

Rev. Buchanan,

Thanks for interacting with (presumably) my thoughts on the two words for new.

As you undoubtedly know, Heb 8:13 uses the word that is generally used with regard to the "new covenant" vs. the "old covenant" (cf. Mt. 26:28, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8, and 9:15). The one exception you rightly pointed out (and this is the only exception I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to serve to bolster the point I was making.

The renewal of the covenant was accomplished by a recent set of actions performed by Christ the Mediator. "Late in time behold Him come, offspring of the Virgin's womb." In this way, the covenant is "neos".

I challenge your claim that arguing from the basic meaning of a term is a lexical fallacy. The one excpetion in Scripture does not serve to overthrow the rule. By definition an exception serves to prove the rule, as I stated it previously. Words have meaning, and for the general usage to be the term "kainos" with "diatheke" with one exception of "neos" demonstrates that there must be something underlying the divergence. Simply because the same English word is used is not relevant.

To me, the Heb 12 passage seems to be stating that, unlike the Old Covenant mountain, with fire and cloud and smoke, we come to a recently begun, or fresh covenant, inaugurated by what was just accomplished (the Mediatorial Blood recently sprinkled in the heavenly tabernacle).

Thus, as you rightly stated, there is no "inviolable rule" in any language's vocabulary, grammar etc. BUT, if words have no meaning, then we are without hope. The basic meaning of the terms may be easily demonstrated from a perusal of Moulton and Geden, and, from what I've seen in my studies, supports the conclusion I made above.

Thanks again for the interaction.

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I only have one little point to make.
Regarding the "linguistic argument" that asserts a qualitative nuance to "new" depending on the word used: it would be more accurate to describe this as an example of the lexical fallacy. We don't decide what the "new" covenant is all about on the basis of typical word usage. There was no "inviolable rule" in Greek culture or language (any more than we have such "rules", but only conventional and variable usage) that different words for "new" made that kind of "fine" distinction. Perhaps we can find a general category of use, but it is never more than general.

FURTHERMORE (!) I give you two separate references to the NEW COVENANT, from the same book of the Bible, that use first one term, and then the other! Compare the Greek of Heb. 8:13 (kainos), and Heb. 12:24 (neos).

Contra_Mundum · #13 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:00 PM

Adam,
The argument you have set forth cuts two completely different ways. I have noted that some baptists as well as various dispensationalists will use the kainos/neos argument to claim that this terminology proves that the New Covenant is "a covenant of a different KIND not simply different in ERA or TIME." We need a better argument than a dictionary option that to answer that. We need something besides an alternative "nuance" or "gloss" such as renewed.

See where I'm coming from?

I don't disagree at all about the value of knowing or using the basic or preponderant meaning of a word. We begin to understand an English sentence in "Moby Dick" the same way--by vocabulary. But that knowledge is only an intermediate step to determining the shade of meaning of that word in a variety of contexts.

My point was (and remains), the best we can say about the New Covenant, based on the word NEW itself is that this covenant is "new" in multiple senses. If, for example, the writer of Hebrews is thinking and writing of the New Covenant, he is unquestionably thinking of it first of all as an Old Covenant term. And plainly he is not so wedded to a concept transferred into the Greek language that ONLY kainos will suffice to express it. διαθήκος καινος has obviously not achieved the status of "technical term", though it is clearly the precise language of the LXX at Jer 31:31 (38:31 in the LXX).

Jesus said "New Covenant" (Lk. 22:20, cf. Mt.26:28; Mk. 14:24), and Paul quotes him in 1 Cor. 11:25. The indirect reference seems to be Jeremiah, so a self-conscious relation (once the words are recorded in Greek) to the LXX is most reasonable.

Paul uses the words again in 2 Cor. 3:6. You don't have the term used elsewhere in the NT outside of Hebrews 8 (again a direct reference to Jeremiah), and Hebrews 9 (still close enough to call it the same context). So, essentially two contextual references in Hebrews, and this writer goes out of his way to use two different words to describe the same covenant.

What is the upshot of all this: only this point--we simply cannot say that an essential point of interpretation of the "newness" of the New Covenant is explicitly stated in the use of kainos. Even if there was an even greater number of references, a single use of neos would greatly weaken such a case. It wouldn't simply "test" the rule, if the rule hasn't been established on more than a handful of uses.

The fact that we have a single OT reference point to the LXX, to which 3 (or 4) of the 6 NT references point (or 7 of 9, depending on how you wish to count them), leaves only 2 Cor. 3:6, "us... ministers of the new (kainos) covenant)" to which the closest linguistic parallel is found in the Heb 12:24 passage, "Jesus, Mediator of the new (neos) covenant"!

We can, and probably should, say that this is a "renewed" covenant of sorts, "fresh" and "on new lines as opposed to old" as AT Robertson renders; but we also have to say that it is "young or not yet old" (ATR) and “recent,” “lately established," (JFB). And we are going to have to answer the dispy and baptist contention that kainos isn't on such "new lines" as to fairly be called a "new" KIND of covenant entirely, one that (for example) has no "visible administration" anymore!

Blessings, friend

armourbearer · #14 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 12:06 AM

The solution lies in a distinction between "covenant" in the dogmatic sense, which seeks to take in the whole of the biblical teaching concerning man's relation to God, and "covenant/testament" in the exegetical sense, which is more concerned with the nature of the biblical covenants as specific transactions in the history of redemption. I think alot of confusion would be spared if the Confession's "frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a Testament" were more consistently observed. Hence we could simply say that there are two covenants, works and grace, and two testaments, new and old. There is then no need to speak of "renewed" covenants on an exegetical level, because the old testament is the covenant of grace administered under the law and the new testament is the covenant of grace administered under the gospel. There will of course be some scholars who outrightly refuse to adopt the testamentary language. Oh well, you can't please all of the people all of the time!

Christusregnat · #15 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 12:28 AM

Rev Buchanan,

Thank you again for your input!

As you will find in my original post, I don't consider the linguistic solution to be the sole argument, or even a primary one. I was merely hoping to illustrate what I demonstrated from redemptive history: that God renewed the covenant of grace, but never supplanted it, with Abraham, Moses, David, Josiah, etc. Each is part of the one covenant of grace, and is a fulfillment of the previous covenants. Each of these, in turn, builds the foundation for the New Covenant. The real covenant that all the rest prepare us for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Adam,
The argument you have set forth cuts two completely different ways. I have noted that some baptists as well as various dispensationalists will use the kainos/neos argument to claim that this terminology proves that the New Covenant is "a covenant of a different KIND not simply different in ERA or TIME." We need a better argument than a dictionary option that to answer that. We need something besides an alternative "nuance" or "gloss" such as renewed.

See where I'm coming from?

Indeed, a point well made. A covenant of a different kind would be a "heteros" covenant, a word not used, if I'm not mistaken, with reference to the diatheke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Even if there was an even greater number of references, a single use of neos would greatly weaken such a case. It wouldn't simply "test" the rule, if the rule hasn't been established on more than a handful of uses.

Not that this is relevant, but this is the same sort of argument used by FV proponents to show that justify can mean something other than declaring righteous. I take that issue in the same light; the basic meaning controls, unless there are contextual considerations that make one reconsider, or be forced to move outside of the basic semantic range.

Again, thank you for your input! I appreciate your breadth of scholarship, and willingness to bear with my ignorance.

Cheers, and blessing as well!

Adam

Reformed Christian · #16 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

...because the old testament is the covenant of grace administered under the law and the new testament is the covenant of grace administered under the gospel.

I appreciate the language of "different administrations of the same covenant," however I'm not sure this oversimplification is adequate to deal with the relationship of the Mosaic and New Covenants.

For example, Michael Horton in God of Promise is very helpful. And what's interesting is that he does not use the language at all of "different administrations" of the Covenant of Grace. In fact, the tenor of his work is that the Covenant of Grace runs "parallel with" the legal, national, typological "republication of the covenant of works" of the Mosaic covenant. For example he says,

"For the apostle to the Gentiles, the simplistic identification of the Old Testament with "law" and the New Testament with "grace" is unthinkable. God's covenant of grace, announced beforehand to Adam and inaugurated with Abraham, is precisely the same as to its content in both testaments...Nevertheless, within the Old Testament itself, Paul finds two discrete covenantal traditions: Abrahamic and Sinaitic. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the unilateral promises of the first and the typological fulfillment of the bilateral conditions of the second." (page 68)

Again, when speaking of the discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants he summarizes his arguments and concludes with,

"...it hardly seems possible to reduce the history of God's relationship with his people to a covenant of grace. Abraham and David witness to an "everlasting covenant" fulfilled solely by Yahweh's unconditional resolve, while the Sinaitic covenant was intended in the first place as a temporary, transitional order anticipating the eschatological kingdom of God throughout the whole earth. The covenant of grace is uninterrupted from Adam after the fall to the present, while the Sinai Pact, conditional and typological, has not become obsolete (Heb. 8:13), its mission having been fulfilled (Gal. 3:23-4:7). (page 75)

I love what he calls Israel under the Mosaic law, a "theocratic parenthesis of redemptive history in which the typological kingdom is front and center."

Again he says,

"The continuity is between Old and New Testaments, not between the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants...The theocracy - the outward administration of the ministry of Moses, most closely identified with the old covenant - has only a typological continuity with the new covenant." (page 102)

This understanding of the typological nature of the national, legal, temporary Mosaic covenant - which is, at least in part, a republication of the covenant of works, is what makes me hesitate to oversimplify this issue. It is one things to say that in the Old Testament God's people were under the covenant of Grace - through the Abrahamic covenant - and another, at least to me, to make the Mosaic covenant "a different administration of the same covenant" as it is often articulated. As Horton strikes a balance and points out,

"If it is wrong to say that the Sinai covenant is simply identical to the Abrahamic covenant of grace, it is not quite right to say that the Sinai covenant (hence, the theocracy generally) is nothing more than a republication of the original covnant of works made to Adam before the fall...Thus we conclude that although the Sinai covenat is gracious in terms of the history leading up to it and in the fact that through Moses's appeasing God's anger, ultimately Israel's tenure in the land - give to Israel by divine grace - is lost by disobedience." (pages 54,55)

If you haven't read the book, it's a great introduction to Covenant Theology - God of Promise by Michael Horton.

armourbearer · #17 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed Christian

If you haven't read the book, it's a great introduction to Covenant Theology - God of Promise by Michael Horton.

Dear brother, the republication theory of "God of Promise" has been discussed here: Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF. I don't think I have anything new to add. Blessings!