Owen’s discussion of the Covenant of Grace is justly famous, although
Owen was a Congregationalist and actually a Paedobaptist, the theology
expressed is the historic Baptist covenant theology that so many of us have
lost sight of. It differs from the Presbyterian understanding. A more
accessible read is Arthur Pink’s “The Divine Covenants” (available to download on this
site).
This text was from John Owen’s exposition of Hebrews and I have tried to
modernise Owen’s language slightly without changing the meaning.
(This was part of a project in which I hoped to produce an essay that
clarified the Baptist understanding of the covenants –but the exercise became
largely redundant when I found the work by Arthur Pink).
Links are limited!.
Contents................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3
The Jewish
church-state.................................................................................................... 3
The
Excellence of Christ..................................................................................................... 3
The Excellence
of His Ministry.......................................................................................... 3
1 The timing of the new covenant................................................................................ 3
2 The Ministry of Christ................................................................................................... 4
3 How Christ Obtained His Ministry............................................................................. 4
4 The Quality of Christ’s Ministry.................................................................................. 5
5 The Degree of Pre-eminence.................................................................................... 5
The Excellence
of His Covenant...................................................................................... 5
1 Christ as Mediator........................................................................................................ 6
1.1 There must
be different parties............................................................................ 6
1.2 The Parties must need Mediation....................................................................... 6
1.3 The Mediator must be Mutually Acceptable...................................................... 6
1.4 The Perfect Mediator shares Both Natures....................................................... 7
1.5 The Mediator must be Willing............................................................................. 7
1.6 Two things required of the Mediator................................................................... 7
1.7 The
Mediator must give Assurance to Both Parties.......................................... 7
2.The
determination of Christ’s mediatory office in the new covenant;................. 8
2.1 He was Mediator of a Covenant.......................................................................... 8
2.2 Which was the “Old Covenant”?......................................................................... 8
The Adamic
Covenant.............................................................................................. 9
Seen as a Law
Only............................................................................................... 9
Seen as a
Covenant.............................................................................................. 9
God’s part of
the Adamic Covenant.................................................................... 9
Man’s part of
the Adamic Covenant.................................................................... 9
The Adamic
Covenant not the Old Covenant of Hebrews 6.8........................... 9
The Adamic
covenant could not be called a testament................................... 9
The Adamic
Covenant had long since ceased as a covenant....................... 9
The Church was
never under the Adamic covenant..................................... 10
Other Federal
Transactions................................................................................... 10
The Sinaitic
Covenant............................................................................................ 10
3. The proof of the excellence of the nature of the
New Covenant: it was “established on better promises.......................................................................................................................... 11
Every Covenant
founded on Promises................................................................... 11
The New
Covenant is founded on Better “Promises”........................................... 13
Two Covenants
or One?................................................................................................... 13
Preliminary
Clarifications................................................................................................. 14
The
Plausibility of the One Covenant View.................................................................. 14
The Differences
Between the “Administrations”...................................................... 14
1 The manner of the declaration of God’s will...................................................... 14
2 The Plentiful Communication of Grace.............................................................. 15
3 The Manner of Access to God.............................................................................. 15
4 The Way of Worship............................................................................................... 15
5 The Extent of the Dispensation of the Grace
of God........................................ 15
The Lutheran
Insistence on Two Distinct Covenants................................................. 15
The Two
Covenants are distinct covenants................................................................ 16
The First
Covenant was a Distinct Covenant............................................................... 18
It had
particular purposes............................................................................................. 18
It did not
supersede the Covenant with Abraham.................................................... 19
The Purposes of
the Old Covenant................................................................................ 20
Paul’s Twofold
Enquiry................................................................................................. 20
No-one saved or
condemned by the Law.................................................................. 23
The
Differences Between The Covenants................................................................... 24
Rome’s wrong
points of difference................................................................................ 24
The Scriptural
points of difference................................................................................. 24
1 In
Circumstance of Time........................................................................................... 24
2 In
Circumstance of Place.......................................................................................... 24
3 In the Manner of Their Establishment.................................................................... 25
4 In Their Mediators...................................................................................................... 26
5 In Subject Matter........................................................................................................ 26
6 In Manner of Dedication and Sanction.................................................................. 26
7 In Their
Priesthood..................................................................................................... 27
8 In Their
Sacrifices....................................................................................................... 27
9 In the Manner of Their Writing or Enrolment........................................................ 27
10 In Their Purposes.................................................................................................... 27
11 In Their Effects......................................................................................................... 27
The Old
Covenant a Ministration of Death............................................................. 28
The New
Covenant A Covenant of Liberty............................................................. 28
How this
Liberty is Communicated.......................................................................... 29
12 In the The Dispensation of the Holy Spirit.......................................................... 29
13 In the Decleration of the Kingdom of God........................................................... 30
14 In their Substance and End................................................................................... 30
15 In the Extent of their Administration..................................................................... 30
16 In their Effectiveness.............................................................................................. 30
17 In their
Duration........................................................................................................ 31
The Old
Covenant had Lesser promises, not NO Promises...................................... 31
The Old
Covenant was in itself unspeakable grace............................................. 31
Obligations of
the New Covenant............................................................................... 32
Hebrews
Chapter 8 Verse 6. —But
now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by howmuch also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was
established on better promises.
In this verse the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews
begins to discuss the differences between the old and new covenants, stating
the pre-eminence of the new above the old, and of the ministry of Christ above
the high priests on that account.
The whole church-state of the Jews, with its ordinances
and worship, and the privileges annexed to it, depended wholly on the covenant
that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new priesthood
that the apostle is describing, necessarily abolished that covenant, and put an
end to all the ceremonies and rites associated wth it. This could not well be
offered to them without the supply of another covenant, which should excel the
former in privileges and advantages.
The Jews granted that it was the design of God to carry
on the church unto a perfect state, as
had been declared on Hebrews 7; wherefore he would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it
had enjoyed, without provision of something better in its place. This, the
apostle is here undertaking to declare. And he does it in his customary manner,
arguing from such principles and testimonies as the Jews already held and
admitted among themselves.
Two points are made to this purpose by express
testimonies from the prophet Jeremiah:
1. That besides the covenant made
with their fathers in Sinai, God had promised to make another covenant with the
church, in his appointed time and season.
2. That this other promised
covenant should be of another nature than the former, excelling it in spiritual
advantages, and in breadth of admission {alternative
words ;eligibility, scope, inclusion,
inclusiveness,}.
From these two points, the apostle infers the necessity
of a time coming when the first covenant that the Jews held to and trusted
would have to be abrogated.
And here he proceeds to declare the nature of the two
covenants and where they differ. This is the subject of the remainder of this
chapter.
This verse is a transition from one subject to another.
Paul has just demonstrated the pre-eminence of the priesthood of Christ above
that of the earthly high-priests of the law, and he now moves on to show the
superiority of the new covenant above the old.
And in the course of this new discussion the apostle
ably proves and confirms his last argument, of the pre-eminency of Christ, from
the qualities of the new covenant of which Christ was the mediator
The text can be taken in two parts: The first part being
an assertion of the excellence of
the ministry of Christ. This he
expresses by way of comparison; “He hath obtained a more excellent ministry:”
and then he declares the degree of that comparison; “By how much also.”
Secondly, he supplies the proof of this assertion; in that Christ is “the
mediator of a better covenant, established on better” or “more excellent”
promises. In the first part of there occur these five things: —
1 The note of its introduction; “But now:”
2 What is implied in the
assertion about the Lord Christ; and
that is a “ministry:”
3 How he came by that ministry; “He hath
obtained it:”
4 The quality of this ministry; it is “better”
or “more excellent” than the other:
5
The measure and degree of this excellence; “By how
much also:”
all of which must be addressed, for the opening of the
words: —
The introduction of the assertion is by the particles nuni< de>, —”but now.” Nu~n,
“now,” is a note of time, of the present time. But it is true that there are
some instances where these adverbial particles
(conjoined as here) do not seem to denote any time or season, but are
merely adversative, eg Romans 7:17;
1 Corinthians 5:11, 7:14. But even in
those places there does seem to be some respect to time also; and so it
shouldn’t be excluded here.
As the opposition of the new covenant to the old
covenant and to the Levitical priesthood is being intimated; so is the timing
of the introduction of the new new covenant and the better ministry that
accompanied it. — ‘“now,” at this time, which is the season that God has
appointed for the introduction of the new covenant and ministry.’ To the same
purpose The apostle expresses the same thought, treating of the same subject,
in Romans 3:26: “To declare ejn tw~| nu~n kairw~|,” “at this instant season,” now the gospel is
preached, “his righteousness.”
Obs. I.
God, in his infinite wisdom, gives proper times and seasons to all his
dispensations to and towards the church. —So the accomplishment of these things
was in “the fullness of times,” Ephesians
1:10; that is, when all things rendered it seasonable and suitable for the
condition of the church, and for the manifestation of his own glory. He
hasteneth all his works of grace in their own appointed time, Isaiah 60:22. And our duty it is
to leave the ordering of all the concerns of the church, in the accomplishment
of promises, to God in his own time, Acts
1:7.
That which is ascribed unto the Lord Christ is leitougri>a,
—a “ministry.” The priests of old had a ministry; they ministered at the altar,
as in the foregoing verse. And the Lord Christ was “a minister” also; so the
apostle had said before, he was lei>tourgov tw~n ajgi>wn,
verse 2, —”a minister of the holythings.” For this reason he had a “liturgy,” a
“ministry,”a service, committed to him. By God the Father And this included two
elements: —
(2.1.) That the office Christ undertook
was that of ministry. He is not called a minister with respect to one
particular act of ministration;— as we are said to “minister unto the necessity
of the saints,” which yet denotes no office in them that do so. But he had a
standing office committed to him, as the word imports. In that sense also he is
called dia>konov, a
“minister” in office, Romans 15:8.
(2.2.) Subordination under God. With
respect unto the church his office is supreme, accompanied with sovereign power
and authority; he is “ Lord over his own house.” But he holds his office in
subordination to God, being “faithful unto him that appointed him.” In like
manner the angels are said to minister unto God, Daniel 7:10; that is, to do all
things according to his will, and at his command. So had the Lord Christ a
ministry. And we may observe, —
Obs. II.
That the whole office of Christ was designed for the accomplishment of the will
and dispensation of the grace of God. For these ends his ministry was committed
to him. We can never sufficiently admire the love and grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in undertaking this office for us. The greatness and glory of the
duties which he performed in the discharge of it, with the benefits we receive
from them, are unspeakable, being the immediate cause of all grace and glory.
Yet we are not absolutely to rest in them, but to ascend by faith to the
eternal spring of them. This is the grace, the love, the mercy of God, all
acted in a way of sovereign power. These are everywhere in the Scripture
represented as the original spring of all grace, and the ultimate object of our
faith, with respect to the benefits which we receive by the mediation of
Christ. His office was committed to him by God, even the Father; and his will
did he do in the discharge of it. Yet also, —
Obs. III.
The condescension of the Son of God to undertake the office of the ministry on
our behalf is unspeakable, and for ever to be admired. —It will appear so
especially, when we consider who it was who undertook it, what it cost him,
what he did and wet through in the accomplishment and discharge of it, as it is
all expressed in Philippians 2:6-8. Not only does
what he continues to do in heaven at the right hand of God belong to this
ministry, but all that he suffered upon the earth. His ministry, in the
undertaking of it, was not a dignity, a promotion, or a revenue, Matthew 20:28. It is true, it
issued in glory, but not until he had undergone all the evils that human nature
is capable of undergoing. And we ought to undergo anything cheerfully for him
who underwent this ministry for us.
Obs. IV.
The Lord Christ, by undertaking this office of the ministry, has consecrated
and made honourable that office to all that are rightly called into it, and do rightly discharge it. —It is
true, his ministry and ours are not of the same kind and nature; but they agree
in this, that they are both of them a ministry to God in the holy things of his
worship. And considering that Christ himself was God’s minister, we have far
greater reason to tremble in ourselves on an apprehension of our own
insufficiency for such an office, than to be discouraged with all the hardships
and contests we meet with in the world on account of it.
The words of our text express the general way in which
our Lord Christ came into this ministry. Te>teuce,
—”He obtained it.” Tugca>nw is either
“sorte contingo,” “to have a lot or portion;” or to have any thing befall a
man, as it were by accident; or “assequor,” “obtineo,” to “attain” or “obtain”
any thing which before we had not. But the apostle chose not to use this word
for the especial call of Christ, or for the particular way he came into his
ministry, but only to say in general that he had it, and possessed it, in the appointed
season, not having possessed it before. The way he entered on the whole office
and work of his mediation is expressed by
keklhrono>mnke, Hebrews 1:4, — he had it by
“inheritance;” that is, by free grant and perpetual gift, made to him as the Son.
See the exposition on that place. (look this up)
There were two things that meet in Christ’s obtaining
this ministry:
(l. ) The eternal purpose and counsel of God appointing
him to it as an act of the divine will accompanied with infinite wisdom, love,
and power.
(2.) The actual call of God, especially his annointing
with the Spirit above measure for the holy discharge of his whole office. Thus
did he obtain this ministry, and not by any legal constitution, succession, or
carnal rite, as did the priests of old. And we may see that,
—
Obs. V.
The exaltation of the human nature of Christ into the office of this glorious
ministry depended solely on the God ‘s sovereign wisdom, grace, and love. —When
the human nature of Christ was united to the divine, it became, in the person
of the Son of God, apropriate and able to make satisfaction for the sins of the
church, and to procure righteousness and eternal life for all that do believe.
But it did not merit that union, nor could it do so. For as it was utterly
impossible that any created nature, by any act of its own, should merit the
hypostatical union (union of natures), so it was granted to the human nature of
Christ before any act of its own in the way of obedience to God.; for it was
united to the person of the Son by virtue of that union. Wherefore,
antecedently to it, it could merit nothing. Hence its whole exaltation, and the
ministry that was discharged in it, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom and
pleasure of God.
In this election of the human nature of Christ to grace
and glory, we may see the pattern of our own. For if it was not on
consideration of the obedience of the human nature of Christ that it was chosen
for the grace of the hypostatical union, but of the mere sovereign grace of
God; how much less could a foresight of any thing in us be the cause of God
choosing us in him before the foundation of the world to grace and glory!
The comparative
quality of Christ’s ministry , in its
excellence, is also expressed: Diaforwte>rav, — “More
excellent.” The word is used only in this epistle in this sense, in Hebrews 1:4, and here. The
original word denotes only a difference from other things; but in the
comparative degree, as here used, it signifies a difference with a preference,
ie a comparative excellency. The ministry of the Levitical priests, was good
and useful in its time and season; this of our Lord Jesus Christ so differed
from it as to be better, and more excellent; pollw~| a]meinon.
And, —
The apostle answers the question “by how much was the
ministry of Christ more excellent than that of the Levitical priests?” He
answers in the word o[ow~|, — “byhow
much.” ‘So much more excellent, by how much.’
The superiority of his ministry above that of the
Levitical priests bears proportion to the excellency of the covenant he
mediates above the old covenant in which
they administered; of which more later.
This is the apostle’s assertion, concerning the
excellency of the ministry of Christ. And with this he closes the
discourse about the pre-eminence of
Christ in his office above the high priests of old. And indeed, this being the
very hinge on which his whole controversy with the Jews depended, he could not give too much evidence, nor too full a
confirmation.
For our own present concerns we are taught that, —
Obs. VI.
It is both our duty and our security to acquiesce absolutely in the ministry of
Jesus Christ. —That which He was purposed for,
in God’s infinite wisdom and grace ; that which he was so equipped and
fitted for by the communication of the Spirit in all fullness; that which all
other priesthoods were removed to make way for, must be sufficient and effectual for all the
puposes God intended.
It may be said,
‘This is that which all men do; all that are called Christians do fully
acquiesce in the ministry of Jesus Christ.’ But if it is so, why do we hear the
bleating of another sort of cattle? What do those other priests mean, and the
repeated sacrifices, which make up the worship of the church of Rome? If they
rest in the ministry of Christ, why do they appoint one of their own to do the
same things that he has done once and for all, —namely, to offer sacrifice to
God ?
Secondly, Paul adds the proof of his assertion; in that
he is “the mediator of a better covenant, established on “better” or “more
excellent promises
The proof of this assertion lies in the latter part of
these words; “By how much he is the mediator of a better covenant, established
on better promises” The words are so disposed, that some think the apostle
intends now to prove the excellency of the covenant from the excellency of his
ministry in it. But the other sense is more suited to the scope of the place,
and the nature of the argument the apostle is pressing on the Hebrews. For,
once suppose that there was indeed another, and a “better” covenant, to be
established, —which they could not deny,
— and it plainly follows that he on whose ministry the dispensation of that
covenant depended must be “more excellent” in that ministry than they of the
covenant which was to be abolished. However, it may be granted that these
things mutually corroborate and illustrate one another. Such as the priest is,
such is the covenant; such as the covenant is in dignity, such is the priest
also.
In the text there are three things observable: —
1. The nature of Christ’s ministry is declared, he
was a “mediator:”
2. He is declared mediator of
the new covenant; “of a better covenant:”
3. The proof or demonstration of
the superior nature of this covenant; it was “established on better promises:”
—
His office is that of a mediator, —mesi>thv, one that interposed between God and man, to do
all the things required to establish a covenant between them.
But this description of a mediator is also wholly
applicable to Moses, and suited to his office in giving the law. See Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy
5:27, 28.
Exodus 20:19; And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and
we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Deut 5:27&28. Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall
say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee;
and we will hear it, and do it. And the LORD heard the voice of your words,
when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the
words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all
that they have spoken.
What is said here does immediately belong to the
mediatory office of Christ, but it is not unique to it. In fact, it excludes
the principal parts of His mediation. And while there is nothing here that does
not belong to Christ’s [I]prophetical[/I] office, it would be improperly
applied as a description of such a (substitutionary redeeming) mediator as Paul
does intend.
Therefore, when Paul comes later to declare what distinguishes
such a mediator of the covenant as he intended, he expressly cites Christ’s
“death for the redemption of transgressions,” Hebrews
9:15; affirming that ”for that cause he was a mediator.”
But there is nothing of this in the description given us
here of this office. This the apostle does elsewhere, in 1 Timothy 2:5, 6,
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.”
The principal part of his mediation consisted in the
“giving himself (as) a ransom,” or a price of redemption for the whole church.
Which is why this description of a mediator of the new testament is feigned
only, to exclude his satisfaction, or his offering himself to God in his death
and blood-shedding, with the atonement made thereby.
The Lord Christ, then, in his ministry, is called mesi>thv,
the “mediator” of the covenant, in the same sense as he is called e]gguov,
the “surety;” which we see from the exposition on Hebrews
7:22. He is, in the new covenant, the mediator, the surety, the priest, the
sacrifice, all in his own person. The ignorance and want of a due consideration
of this, are the great evidence of the degeneracy of Christian religion.
Whereas this is the first general notion of the office
of Christ, that which comprises the whole ministry committed to him, and
contains in itself the special offices of king, priest, and prophet, by which
he discharges his mediation, some things must be mentioned that are declare its
nature and use. And to this end we may observe,
—
That for there to be a mediator there must be different
parties willing to be involved in the covenant, (as there must be in every
contract of any kind). So says our apostle, “A mediator is not of one, but God
is one,” Galatians 3:20; that is, if
there were none but God concerned in this matter, as is the case in an absolute
promise or a sovereign precept, there would be no need of or place for a
mediator. Such a mediator as Christ is. So our consent to the covenant is
required in the very notion of a mediator.
The parties entering into covenant will be in a state
and condition that prevents them treating immediately with each other as to the
ends of the covenant; for if they can do so then a mediator to go between is
altogether needless.
This was the case in the original covenant with Adam,
which had no mediator. But in the giving of the law at Sinai, which was to be a
covenant between God and the people, they found themselves utterly insufficient
for an immediate treaty with God, and therefore desired that they might have an
intermediary to go between God and them, to bring his proposals, and carry back
their consent, Deuteronomy
5:23-27. And this is the voice of all who are
really convinced of the holiness of God, and of their own condition.
Such is the state between God and sinners. The law and the curse of it did so
interpose between them, that they could not enter into any immediate treaty
with God, Psalm 5:3-5. This made a
mediator necessary, so that the new covenant might be established; of which
more later.
The mediator must be accepted, trusted, and rested in by
both sides, or both parties mutually entering into covenant. An absolute trust
must be placed in him, so that each party may be fully obliged in what he
undertakes on their behalf; and those who do not accept his terms can have no
benefit by, or no interest in the covenant. So was it with the Lord Christ in
this matter. On the part of God, He reposed the whole trust of all the concerns
of the covenant in him’ “Behold,” saith he of him, “my servant, whom I uphold;
mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” or is “well pleased,” —ejn w+| eujdo>khsa,
Isaiah 42:l; Matthew
3:17. When he undertook this office, and said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O
God,” the soul of God rested in him, Exodus
23:21; John 5:20-22. And to him he
gives an account at last of his discharge of his task,” I have
glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to
do “John 17:4. And on our part, unless we resign
ourselves absolutely to a complete trust and reliance on him, and unless we
accept all the terms of the covenant as
proposed by him, and engage to stand by all that he has undertaken on our
behalf, we can have neither share nor interest in this matter.
A
mediator must be a middle person between both parties entering into a covenant;
and if they are of different natures, a perfect, complete mediator ought to
comprise each of their natures in the same person.
A mediator must be one who voluntarily and of his own
accord undertakes the work of mediation. This is required of every one who will
effectually mediate between any persons at variance, to bring them to an
agreement on equal terms. So it was required that the will and consent of
Christ should concur in his acceptance of this office; and that hedid so, he
expressly testifies, Hebrews 10:5-10.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 10:6 In burnt offerings
and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come
(in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for
sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the
law; 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the
first, that he may establish the second. 10:10 By the which will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
It is true, he was appointed by the Father to this
office; hence he is called his “servant,” and constantly witnesses of himself,
that he came to do the will and commandment of him that sent him: but what he
had to do in thedischarge of this
office, could not, according to any rule
of divine righteousness, be imposed on him without his voluntary consent. And
this was the ground of the eternal compact between the Father and the Son, with
respect to his mediation; And the testimony of his own will, grace, and love,
in the acceptance of this office, is a principal motive to that faith and trust
which the church places in him, as the mediator between God and them.
Upon this, his voluntary undertaking, does the soul of
God rest in him, and God reposes the whole trust in him of accomplishing God’s
will and pleasure, the design of his
love and grace in this covenant, Isaiah
53:10-12.
And the faith of the church, on whch salvation depends,
must be inseparably accompanied by love to his person. Love to Christ is no
less necessary to salvation than faith in him. And as faith is resolved into
the sovereign wisdom and grace of God in sending him, and Christ’s own ability
to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him; so love arises from the
consideration of Christ’s own love and grace in his voluntary undertaking of
this office, and his discharge of it.
In this voluntary undertaking to be a mediator, two
things were required: —
[1.] That
he should remove whatever kept the covenanters at a distance, whatever was a
cause of enmity between them. For it is supposed that there was such an enmity,
or there had been no need of a mediator. Therefore in the covenant made with
Adam, where there was no enmity between God and man, there was no mediator. But
the design of this covenant was to make reconciliation and peace. On this,
therefore, depended the necessity of satisfaction, redemption, and the making
of atonement, by sacrifice. For man having sinned and apostatized from the rule
of God, thereby bringing himself under Gods wrath, according to the eternal
rule of righteousness, and in particular the curse of the law, there could be
no new peace and agreement made with God unless due satisfaction were made for
these things. For although God was willing, in infinite love, grace, and mercy,
to enter into a new covenant with fallen man, yet he would not do it to the
prejudice of his righteousness, the dishonour of his rule, and the contempt of
his law. Therefore noone could undertake to be a mediator of this covenant, but
one that was able to satisfy the justice of God, glorify his government, and
fulfill the law. And this could be done by no-one but Christ, concerning whom
it might be said that “God purchased his church with his own blood.
And [2.]
That he should procure, in a way suited to the glory of God, the actual
delivery of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant; that
is, grace and glory, with all that is associated with them, on behalf of those whose surety he was. And this is the
foundation of the merit of Christ, and of the grant of all good things to us
for his sake.
(1.7.) It is required of this mediator,
as such, that he give assurance to and undertake for the parties mutually
concerned, the accomplishment of the terms of the covenant, undertaking on each
hand for them: —
[1.]
On the part of God towards men, that they shall have peace and acceptance with
him, in the sure accomplishment of all the promises of the covenant. This he
does only declaratively, in the doctrine of the gospel, and in the institution
of the ordinances of evangelical worship. For he was not a surety for God, nor
did God need any, having confirmed his promise with an oath, swearing by
himself, because he had no greater to swear by.
And [2.]
On our part, he undertakes to God for our acceptance of the terms of the
covenant, and our accomplishment of them, by his enabling us to do so.
These things, among others, were necessary in a full and
complete mediator of the new covenant, such as Christ was. And, —
Obs. VII.
The provision of this mediator between God and man was an effect of infinite
wisdom and grace. It was the greatest and most glorious external effect ever
produced by them or that will be in this world. The creation of all things at
first out of nothing was a glorious effect of infinite wisdom and power; but
when the glory of that design was eclipsed by the entrance of sin, this provision
of a mediator, — one through whom all things were restored into a
condition bringing even more glory to
God, and securing for ever the blessed estate of those whose mediator he is,
—this is accompanied with more evidences of the divine excellencies than even
creation. Ephesians 1:10. “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times
he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven,
and which are on earth; even in him:”
Two things are added in the description of this
mediator:
[1.] That
he was a mediator of a covenant;
And [2] That this
covenant was better than another of which he was not the mediator: —
He
was the mediator of a “covenant.” And two things are supposed in this: —
[1.]
That there was a covenant prepared between God and man; that is, it was so far
made, as that God who made it had prepared the terms of it in a sovereign act
of wisdom and grace..
And [2.] [DMH1]That
there was need of a mediator, that this covenant might be effective in its
proper ends, the glory of God and the obedience of mankind, with their reward.
This was not required from the nature of a covenant in
general; for a covenant may be made and entered into between different parties
without any mediator, merely on the equity of the terms of it.
Nor was it so from the nature of a covenant between God
and man,as man was at first created of God; for the first covenant between them
was immediate, without the interposition of a mediator. But it became necessary
from the state and condition of those with whom this covenant was made, and the
special nature of this covenant.
This the apostle declares, Romans 8:3,
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and
for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”
The law was the moral instrument or rule of the covenant
that was made immediately between God and man: but it could not continue to be
so after the entrance of sin; that is, so that God might be glorified by it, in
the obedience and reward of men. Wherefore he “sent his Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh;” that is, he provided a mediator for a new covenant. The persons with
whom this covenant was to be made ,being all of them sinners and apostatized
from God, it did not become the holiness or righteousness of God to deal
immediately with them any more. Nor would it have answered his holy purposes to
have done so. For if,when they were in a condition of uprightness and
integrity, they did not keep the terms
of that covenant made immediately with them, without a mediator, although they
were then holy, just, good, and equal; how much less could any such thing be
expected from them in their depraved condition of apostasy from God and enmity
against him? It therefore did not become the wisdom of God to enter again into
a covenant with mankind, without assurance that the terms of the covenant
should be accepted, and the grace of it made effectual.
As men we could not provide this assurance, indeed we
gave every possible evidence to the contrary, in that “God saw that
every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually,” Genesis 6:5.
So it was necessary that there should be a mediator to
be the surety of this covenant. Again, the covenant itself was so prepared, in
the counsel, wisdom, and grace of God, so that the principal, and indeed, all
the benefits of it, would depend on what was to be done by a mediator, and that
could not otherwise be accomplished. The mediator would accomplish satisfaction
for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; which are the
foundation of this covenant.
To proceed with the text; the covenant mediated by the Lord Christ is
said to be a “better covenant.” This supposes
another covenant, of which the Lord Christ was not the mediator. In the following verses
there are two covenants, a first and a latter, an old and a new, compared
together. It is the key to the whole understanding of the apostle’s subsequent
discourse to determine precisely which covenant was that other “old covenant”,
that is now inferior to Christ’s”.
And because
this is a subject wrapped up in much obscurity, and with many potential
difficulties, it will be necessary to be as clear and unambiguous in the
determination of the truth and in the statement of it, as we can be.
And I shall first explain the text, and then
discuss the difficulties which arise from it: —
[1.] There was an original covenant made with Adam, and
all mankind in him. The rule of obedience and reward that was between God and
him was not expressly called a covenant, but it contained the express nature of
a covenant; for it was the agreement of God and man concerning obedience and
disobedience, rewards and punishments. Where there is a law concerning these
things, and an agreement upon it by all parties concerned, there is a formal
covenant. Wherefore[DMH2]
it may be considered two ways: —
1st. As it was a law only; so it
proceeded from, and was a consequence of the nature of God and man, with their mutual
relation to one another. God being considered as the creator, governor, and
benefactor of man; and man as an intellectual creature, capable of moral
obedience; this law was necessary, and is eternally indispensable.
2dly. As it was a covenant; and this
depended on the will and pleasure of God.
I will not discuss whether God might have given a law to
men that had nothing in it of a covenant, such as the law of creation is to all
other creatures, which has no rewards nor punishments annexed to it.
Yet this God calls a covenant also, inasmuch as it is an
effect of his purpose, his unalterable will and pleasure, Jeremiah 33:20, 21.
Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my
covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their
season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant,that he
should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the
priests, my ministers.
But that this law of our obedience should be a formal,
complete covenant, there were moreover some things required on the part of God,
and some also on the part of man.
Two things were done on the part of God to complete this
covenant: —
(1st.) He annexed to it promises of
reward and threatenings of punishment; the first of grace, the other of
justice.
(2dly.) He expressed these promises and
threatenings in external signs; the first in the tree of life, the latter in
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By these signs God established the
original law of creation as a covenant, and gave it the nature of a covenant.
On the part of man, it was required that he accept this
(God’s) law as the rule of the covenant which God made with him. And this he
did two ways: —
[1st.] By the innate principles of reason and obedience
created in him as part of his very nature. By these he absolutely and in all
things gave his assent to the law, as proposed with promises and threatenings,
as holy, just, and good, —as what was meet for God to require, and what was
equal and good for himself.
[2dly.] By his acceptance of the commands concerning the
tree of life, and that of the knowledge of good and evil, as the signs and
pledges of this covenant. So was it established as a covenant between God and
man, without the interposition of any mediator.This is the covenant of works,
absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not
the old covenant of Hebrews 6.8 for, —
1st. The old covenant we seek is
called afterwards (where[DMH3]?) “the first,” was diatheke,
a “testament.” And so it is called here. It was therefore such a covenant as
could be termed a testament also. Now there can be no testament, but there must
be death for the confirmation of it, Hebrews
9:16.
But in the making of the covenant with Adam, there was
no death of any thing, whereby it might be called a testament. But in the
confirmation of the covenant at Sinai there was the death of beasts in
sacrifice, as we shall see afterwards. And it must be observed, that although I
use the term “covenant,” as we have rendered the word diatheke,
[because the true signification [DMH4]of
that word will more properly occur to us in another place,] yet I do not
understand by its use here a covenant properly and strictly, but a covenant that
is also a testament, in which the good things (of him that makes it) are
bequeathed to the beneficiaries. Neither
the word used constantly by the apostle in this argument, nor the design of his
discourse, admit of any other meaning of covenant to be understood in this
place. Whereas, since the first covenant made with Adam was not a testament, it
cannot be the old covenant in question.
2dly. That first covenant made with
Adam had ceased long before, even at the first
entrance of sin. It was not abolished or abrogated by any act of God, as
a law, but it was made weak and insufficient to its first end, as a covenant.
God had provided a way for the salvation of sinners,
declared in the first promise. When this is actually embraced, that first
covenant ceases towards them, as to its curse, in all its concerns as a
covenant, and obligation to sinless obedience as the condition of life because
both of them are answered by the mediator of the new covenant. But as to all
those who do not receive the grace tendered in the promise, it remains in full force, not as a covenant, but
as a law; and that because neither the obedience it requires nor the curse
which it threatens is fulfilled. Hence, if any man believeth not, “the wrath of
God abideth on him.”
For as its commands and curse depend on the necessary
relation between God and man, with the righteousness of God as the supreme
governor of mankind, so they must be answered and fulfilled. Therefore it was
never formally abrogated. But as all unbelievers are still obliged by it, and
under it must stand or fall, so it is perfectly fulfilled in all believers,
—not in their own persons, but in the person of their surety.
“God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3, 4.
But as a covenant, obliging personal, perfect, sinless
obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by individuals, so it
ceased to be, long before the introduction of the new covenant which the
apostle speaks of,and that was promised “in the latter days.” But the other
covenant we seek and that is here spoken
of was not removed or taken away, until this new covenant was actually
established.
3dly. The church of Israel was never absolutely under
the power of that covenant as a covenant of life; for from the days of Abraham,
the promise was given to them and their seed. And the apostle proves that no
law could afterwards be given, or covenant made, that should disannul that
promise, 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.
But had they been
brought under the old covenant of works, it would have disannulled the promise;
for that covenant and the promise are diametrically opposed. And moreover, if
they were under that covenant, then they were all under the curse, and so would
perished eternally: which is clearly false; for it is testified of them (where?) that they pleased God by faith, and
so were saved. But it is evident that the old covenant that we seek was a
covenant in which the church of Israel walked with God, until such time as this
better covenant was solemnly introduced. This is plainly declared in the
ensuing context, especially at the close of chapter Eight, where, speaking of
this former covenant, Paul says, it had “become old,” and so “ready to
disappear.” Therefore it is not the covenant of works made with Adam that is
intended, when the New is said to be a “better covenant.”
[2.] There were other federal transactions between God
and the church before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. There were two of
them into which all the rest were resolved: —
1st. The first promise, given to
our first parents immediately after the fall. This had in it the nature of a
covenant, grounded on a promise of grace, and requiring obedience of all that
received the promise.
2dly. The promise given and sworn to
Abraham, which is expressly called the covenant of God, and had the whole
nature of a covenant in it, with a solemn outward seal appointed for its
confirmation and establishment. Hereof
we have treated at large on the sixth chapter.[DMH5]
Neither of these, nor any transaction between God and
man that may be reduced to them, as explanations, renovations, or confirmations
of them, is the “first covenant” intended here. For they are not only
consistent with the “new covenant,” so that there was no need to remove them
out of the way for its introduction, but they did indeed contain in them the
essence and nature of the new covenant it, and so were confirmed in it and by it. Hence the Lord Christ himself is
said to be “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made to the fathers,” Romans 15:8.
As he was the mediator of the new covenant, he was so far from departing from,
or abolishing those promises, that it belonged to his office to confirm them.
Wherefore, —
[3.]. The other covenant or testament here supposed,
inferior to that of which the Lord
Christ was the mediator, is none other than that which God made with the people
of Israel on mount Sinai. So the Apostle expressly affirms, verse 9: “The
covenant which I made with your fathers in the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” This was that covenant which had all
the institutions of worship annexed to it,
Hebrews 9:1-3.
It is with respect to this “old covenant” that the Lord Christ is said to be the “mediator
of a better covenant;” that is, of another one distinct from it, and better.
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, themeaning
of which must be inquired into.
I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider the new covenant in its absolute [DMH6]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 the administration of the
(absolute )covenant of grace made by the introduction of the law. But Paul
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.
Wherefore he considers ithe new covenantt 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. The new covenant 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 of grace 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 superinduced [DMH7]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 (for that time) consistent with a form of worship,
rites and ceremonies, (and those composed into a yoke of bondage) which did not
belong to it. They belonged to the (old) covenant of the Law. And as these, being added after its [DMH8]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 , made this alteration[DMH9].
In the last place, the apostle tells what the new
covenant was establishedon ; and that is ejpi krei>ttosin
ejpaggeli>aiv, —”on better promises.” For the better
understanding of this we must consider the origin[DMH10]aland
use of divine promises in our relation to God. And observe, —
(3.1) That every covenant between God
and man must be founded on and resolved into “promises.” Hence essentially a
promise and a covenant the same; and God calls an absolute promise, founded on
an absolute decree, his covenant,
Genesis 9:11. And I will
establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by
the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the
earth.”
And his purpose for the continuation of the course of
nature until the end of the world, he calls his covenant with day and night,
Jeremiah 33:20. Thus saith the LORD; If
ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that
there should not be day and night in their season;
The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the
promise. Hence they are called “the covenants of promise,”
Ephesians 2:12; “That at that time ye were without Christ, being
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”
—such as are founded on and consist in promises. And it
is necessary that it should be so. For, —
[3.1.1.] The nature of God who makes these covenants
requires that it should be so. It becomes his greatness and goodness, in all
his voluntary transactions with his creatures, to propose that to them in which
their advantage, their happiness and blessedness, does consist. We inquire not
how God may deal with his creatures as such; what he may absolutely require of
them, on the account of his own being, his absolute essential excellencies,
with their universal dependence on him. Who can express or limit the
sovereignty of God over his creatures? All the disputes about it are foolish.
We have no measures of what is infinite. May he not do with his own what he
pleases? Are we not in his hands, as clay in the hands of the potter? And whether
he makes or mars a vessel, who shall say to him, What doest thou? He gives no
account of his matters. But given that he will condescend to enter into
covenant with his creatures, and to come to agreement with them according to
the terms of it, it becomes his greatness and goodness to give them promises as
the foundation of it, in which he proposes to them the things wherein their
blessedness and reward do consist. For,
3.1.1.1 First Herein he
proposes himself to them as the eternal spring and fountain of all power and
goodness. Had he treated with us merely by a law, he would have only revealed
his sovereign authority and holiness; the one in the giving of the law, and the
other in the nature of it. But in his promises he reveals himself as the
eternal spring of goodness and power; for the matter of all promises is
something good; and the communication of it depends on sovereign power. That
God should so declare himself in his covenant, was absolutely necessary to
direct and encourage the obedience of the covenanters; and he did so
accordingly,
Genesis 15:1,
After
these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear
not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward
Genesis17:1, 2. And when Abram was ninety
years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the
Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 17:2 And I will make my
covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3.1.1.2
2dly hereby he reserves all the glory
to himself. For although the terms of agreement which he proposes between
himself and us are in their own nature “holy, just, and good,” yet if there
were not something on his part which was independent of any goodness,
obedience, or desert in us, we should have
something to credit and glory of in ourselves; which is inconsistent with the
glory of God. But the matter of those promises in which the covenant is founded is free, undeserved,
and without respect to anything in us that could in any sense procure it. And
so in the first covenant (Adamic), which was given in a form of law, attended
with a penal sanction, yet the foundation of it was in a promise of a free and
undeserved reward, even of the eternal enjoyment of God: which no goodness or
obedience in the creature could possibly merit the attainment of. So that if a
man should by virtue of any covenant be justified by works, though he might
have something to glory of before men, yet could he not glory before God, as
the apostle declares,
Romans 4:2; For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof
to glory; but not before God.
and that because the reward proposed in the promise
infinitely exceeds the obedience performed.
3.1.2. It was also necessary on our part that every
divine covenant should be founded and established on promises; for there is no
state in which we may be taken into covenant with God, but supposes that we are
not yet arrived at that perfection and blessedness of which our nature is
capable, and which we cannot but desire.
And therefore when we come to heaven, and the full
enjoyment of God, there shall be no need of any covenant any more, seeing we
shall be in eternal rest, in the enjoyment of all the blessedness of which we
capable, and shall consistently adhere to God without any further expectation.
But while we are in the way, we have still principal parts of our blessedness,
to desire, expect, and believe. So in the state of Adam’s innocence, though it
had all the perfection which a state of obedience according to a law was
capable of, yet it did not have the blessedness of eternal rest, for which we
were made. Now, whilst it is thus with us, we cannot but desire and seek that
full and complete happiness, which our nature cannot come to rest without.
This, therefore, renders it necessary that there should be a promise of it
given as the foundation of the covenant; without which we should lack our
principal encouragement to obedience. Much more must it be so in the state of
sin and apostasy from God; for we are now not only most remote from our utmost
happiness, but involved in a condition of misery, without deliverance from
which we cannot be induced to surrender to covenant obedience. Wherefore,
unless we are prevented [DMH11]in
the covenant with promises of deliverance and future blessedness, no covenant
could be of use or advantage to us.
[3.1.3.]It is necessary from the nature of a covenant.
For every covenant that is proposed to men, and accepted by them, requires
something to be performed on their part, otherwise it is no covenant.
Where any thing is required from them to whom a covenant is proposed, it
further supposes that something is promised by them proposing the covenant,as
the foundation of its acceptance, and the reason of the duties required in it.
All this appears most evidently in the
covenant of grace, which is here said to be “established on promises;” and this
on two accounts. For, —
[3.1.3.1.] At the same time that much is required of us
in the way of duty and obedience, we are told in the Scripture, and find it by
experience, that of ourselves we can do nothing.
Wherefore, unless the precept of the covenant is founded in a promise of
giving us grace and spiritual strength,
by which we may be enabled to perform those duties, the covenant can be of no
benefit or advantage to us. Every covenant is founded in promises, and that the
promises give life to the precepts of it. And the want of this one
consideration has perverted the minds of many to suppose an ability in
ourselves to yield obedience to those precepts, without grace received
beforehand to enable us to do so. Such
ability in men would overthrow the nature of the new covenant.
[3.1.3.2.] As was observed, we are all actually guilty
of sin before this covenant was made with us. So unless there is a promise
given of the pardon of sin, it is to no purpose to propose any new covenant
terms to us. For “the wages of sin is death;” and we having sinned must die,
whatever we do afterwards, unless our sins be pardoned. This, therefore, must
be proposed to us as the foundation of the covenant, or it will be of no
effect. And herein lies the great difference between the promises of the
covenant of works and those of the covenant of grace. The first were only
concerning future things; eternal life and blessedness on the accomplishment of
perfect obedience. It needed no promises of present mercy and pardon and was not capable of such. Nor had it any
promises of giving more grace, or supplies of it; but man was wholly left to
what he had at first received. Hence the covenant was quickly broken. But in
the covenant of grace all things are founded in promises of present mercy, and
continual supplies of grace, as well as of future blessedness. Hence it comes
to be “ordered in all things, and sure.” And this is the first thing that was
to be declared, namely, that every divine covenant is established on promises.
(3.2.) These promises are said to be
“better promises” than those of the (Sinaitic) covenant, which had its promises
particular to it. It was, indeed, principally represented under a system of
precepts or laws, but it had its promises also, and we shall now look at the
nature of these promises. That the new covenant should be founded in promises,
was necessary from its general nature as a covenant, and more necessary from
its especial nature as a covenant of grace. That these promises are said to be
“better promises,” is said with respect
those of the old covenant. But this is so said absolutely. They are not only
better than the old promises, but they are positively good themselves, and
absolutely the best that God ever gave, or will ever give to the church. Just
what they are we must consider as we progress. Several things may be observed
from these words: —
Obs. VIII.
There is infinite grace in every divine covenant, in as much as it is
established on promises. —It is infinite condescension in God, that he will
enter into covenant with dust and ashes, with poor worms of the earth. In this
lies the spring of all grace, from which all the streams of it flow. And its
first expression is the laying of its foundation in some undeserved promises.
And this was was appropriate to the goodness and greatness of his nature, the
means whereby we are brought to adhere to him in faith, hope, trust, and
obedience, until we come to the enioyment of him; for that is the use of
promises, to keep us in adherence to God, as the first original [DMH12]and
spring of all goodness, and the ultimate satisfactory reward of our souls,
2 Corinthians 7:1. Having
therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all
filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Obs. IX. The promises of the covenant of grace are better than those
of any other covenant, as for many other reasons, so especially because the
grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part. — not to
say that the covenant of grace is
absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience
which God requires of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but to say, the
principal promises of it are not in the first place remunerative of our
obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously
(effectually) assumptive of us into covenant, and establishing or
confirming (us?) in the covenant.
The Adamic covenant of works had its promises, but they
were all remunerative, respecting a prior obedience in us; (so were all those
which were peculiar to the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace,
in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet
they all supposed obedience it, and the subject of them was formally reward
only. In the covenant of grace it is not so; for several of the promises of it
are the means of our being taken into covenant, of our entering into covenant
with God. The first covenant absolutely was established on promises, in that
when men (Adam & Eve) were actually taken into it, they were encouraged to
obedience by the promises of a future reward. But the new promises, namely, of
the pardon of sin and writing of the law in our hearts, which the apostle
expressly insists upon as the peculiar promises of this new covenant, do take
place and are effectual prior to our covenant obedience. For although faith is
required in order of nature before our actual receiving of the pardon of sin,
yet that faith itself is wrought in us
by the grace of the promise, and so its precedence to pardon is with respect
only the order that God has appointed in the communication of the benefits of
the covenant, and not that the pardon of sin is the reward of our faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The apostle has thus entered into his discourse of the
two covenants, which he continues to the end of the chapter (Hebrews 8). But
the whole discourse is not without its difficulties. Many things in particular
will occur to us in our progress, which should be considered in their proper places.
In the meantime there are some general things which may usefully be discussed
at this point, and the determination of which will shed much light on what
follows.
First, therefore, the apostle is evidently discussing
two covenants, or two testaments, comparing the one with the other, and
declaring the disannulling of the one by the introduction and establishment of
the other. What these two covenants are
in general we have declared, — namely, that made with the church of Israel at
mount Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not cosidered as the covenant
of grace in its absolute sense (as it predates the creation), but considered as
actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs
to it.
Here then arises a difference of no small importance, namely, whether
these are indeed two distinct covenants, as to the essence and substance of
them, or whether they are only different ways of the dispensation and
administration of the same covenant.
And the (reason of the) difficulty lies in this: We must grant one of
these three things:
1. That either the covenant of grace was in force under the old
testament; or,
2. That the church was saved without it, or any benefit by Jesus Christ,
who is the mediator of it alone; or,
3. That they all perished everlastingly.
And neither of the two latter can be admitted.
Some, indeed, in these latter days, have revived the old
Pelagian [DMH13]imagination,
that before the law men were saved by the conduct of natural light and reason;
and under the law they were saved by the directive doctrines, precepts, and
sacrifices, —without any respect to the Lord Christ or his mediation in another
covenant. But I shall not here contend
with them, as having elsewhere sufficiently refuted these imaginations[DMH14]. I
shall take it here for granted, that no man was ever saved but by virtue of the
new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in it .
Suppose then, that this new covenant of grace was extant (in existence) and
effectual under the old testament, so that the church was saved by virtue of
it, and the mediation of Christ in it, how could it be that there should at the
same time be another covenant (the Sinaitic) between God and them, of a
different nature from this, accompanied with other promises, and other effects?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this consideration it is said by some, that the two covenants
mentioned, the new and the old, were not indeed two distinct covenants, in
their essence and substance, but only different administrations of the same
covenant, called two covenants from some different outward solemnities and
duties of worship attending them. To clearly discuss this with the minimum of unnecessary
difficulty the following clarifications should be observed and noted, —
1. That by the old covenant, the
original covenant of works, made with Adam and all mankind in him, is not intended;
for this is undoubtedly a covenant different in its essence and substance from
the new.
2. By the new covenant, not the new
covenant absolutely and originally, as given in the first promise, is intended;
but in its complete gospel administration, when it was actually established by
the death of Christ, as administered in and by the ordinances of the new
testament. This, with the covenant of Sinai, were, as most say, but different
administrations of the same covenant.This latter being the point to be
examined.
As on the other hand, there is such express mention
made, not only in this, but in several other places in the Scriptures, of two distinct covenants, or testaments, and
such different natures, properties, and effects, ascribed to them, as seem to
constitute two distinct covenants. This, therefore, we must inquire into; and
shall first declare what is agreed by those who are sober in this matter,
though they differ in their judgments about this question, whether two distinct
covenants, or only a twofold administration of the same covenant, be intended. And indeed
there is so much agreed , as that what remains seems rather to be a difference about the expression of the same
truth, than any real contradiction about the things themselves. For, —
1. It is agreed that the way of
reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation, was always one and the
same; and that from the giving of the first promise no-one was ever justified
or saved but by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator of it. The
foolish imagination before mentioned, that men were saved before the giving of
the law by following the guidance of the light of nature, and after the giving
of the law by obedience to its directions, is rejected by all that are sober,
as being destructive of the Old Testament and the New.
2. That the writings of the Old
Testament, namely, the Law, the Psalms, and Prophets, do contain and declare
the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ. This the church of old
believed, and walked with God in the faith of it. This is undeniably proved, in
that the doctrine mentioned is frequently confirmed in the New Testament by
testimonies taken out of the Old.
3. That by Sinaitic covenant, as
the Law is properly called, separated from its figurative relation to the
covenant of grace, no-one was ever
eternally saved.
4. That the use of all the
institutions by which the old covenant was administered, was to represent and
direct men to Jesus Christ, and his mediation.
These things being granted, the only way of life and
salvation by Jesus Christ, under the old testament and the new, is secured;
which is the substance of the truth we are now concerned in. On these grounds
we may proceed with our inquiry.
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. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant
consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant,
but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that
which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it has the
appearance and name of another covenant. And the difference between the two
administrations may be reduced to the following heads: —
It consisted in the way and manner of the declaration of
the mystery of the love and will of God in Christ; of the work of
reconciliation and redemption, with our justification by faith. For in this the
gospel, in which “life and immortality are brought to light,” does in
plainness, clearness, and evidence, far excel the administration and
declaration of the same truths under the law. And the greatness of the
privilege of the church in this is not easily expressed. For hereby
”with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the
Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the
Spirit of the Lord”. 2 Corinthians 3:18.
The man whose eyes the Lord Christ opened, Mark 8:23-25, represents these
two states. When he first touched him, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but he
saw nothing clearly; so, when he looked, he said, “I see men as trees,
walking,” verse 24: but upon his second touch, he saw every man clearly,” verse
25.
They had their sight under the old testament, and the object was proposed to
them, but at a great distance, with such an interposition of mists, clouds, and
shadows, as that they saw men like trees, walking,” —nothing clearly and
perfectly: but now, under the gospel, the object, which is Christ, being
brought near to us, and all clouds and shadows being removed, we do or may see
all things clearly. When an olden traveller on his way in moors or hills is
encompassed with a thick mist and fog, though he is in his way yet he is
uncertain, and nothing is presented to him in its proper shape and distance;
things near seem to be afar off, and things afar off to be near, and every
thing has, though not a false, yet an uncertain appearance. Let the sun cme out
and scatter the mists and fogs, and immediately every thing appears quite in
another shape to him, so as indeed he is ready to think he is not where he was.
His way is plain, he is certain of it, and all the region about lies in clear
sight; yet there was no alteration made
but the removal of the mists and clouds that interrupted his sight. So it was
with them that were under the law. The types and shadows that they were
enclosed in, and which were the only medium they had to view spiritual things,
did not represent them clearly and in their proper shape. But now the types and
shadows are removed, by the rising of the Sun of righteousness with healing in
his wings, in the dispensation of the gospel, the whole mystery of God in
Christ is clearly manifested to them that do believe. And the greatness of this
privilege of the gospel above the law is inexpressible; of which we must speak
afterwards.
In the plentiful communication of grace to the community
of the church; for now it is that we receive “grace for grace,” or a plentiful
outpouring of it, by Jesus Christ. There was grace given in an eminent manner
to many holy persons under the old testament, and all true believers had true,
real, saving grace communicated to them; but the measures of grace in the true
church under the new testament exceed those of the community of the church
under the old. And therefore, as God winked at some things under the old
testament, as polygamy, and the like, which are expressly and severely
forbidden under the new, nor are consistent with the present administrations of
it; so are several duties, such as those of self-denial, readiness to bear the
cross, to forsake houses, lands, and habitations, more expressly directed to us
than to them. And the obedience which God requires in any covenant, or
administration of it, is proportional to the strength which the administration
of that covenant exhibits. And if those who profess the gospel content
themselves without any interest in this privilege of it, if they endeavour not
for a share in that plentiful outpouring of grace which does accompany its
present administration, the gospel itself will be of no other use to them, but
to increase and aggravate their condemnation.
In the manner of our access to God. Much of all that is called religion consists
in this; for on it all our outward worship of God depends. And in this the
advantages of the gospel-administration of the covenant above that of the law
is in all things very eminent. Our access now to God is immediate, by Jesus
Christ, with liberty and boldness, as we shall afterwards declare. Those under
the law were immediately conversant, in their whole worship, with outward,
typical things, — the tabernacle, the altar, the ark, the mercy-seat, and the
like as obscure representations of the presence of God. Besides, the manner of
the making of the covenant with them at mount Sinai filled them with fear, and
brought them into bondage, so that they had comparatively a servile frame of spirit
in all their holy worship.
In the way of worship required under each
administration. For under the Law, it seemed good to God to appoint a great
number of outward rites, ceremonies, and observances. These were obscure in
their meaning, and in their use and ends. By reason of their nature, number,
and the severe penalties under which they were commanded, they were grievous
and burdensome to observe. But the way of worship under the gospel is
spiritual, rational, and plainly serves the ends of the covenant itself; so
that the purpose, ends, benefits, and advantages of it are evident to all.
In the extent of the dispensation of the grace of God;
for this is greatly enlarged under the gospel. For under the old testament it
was upon the matter confined to the posterity of Abraham according to the
flesh; but under the new testament it extends itself to all nations under
heaven. Several other things are usually added by our divines to the same
purpose. See Calvin. Institut. lib. 2:cap. xi.; Martyr. Loc. Com. loc. 16,
sect. 2; Bucan. loc. 22, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Their arguments are
1. Because in the Scripture they
are often so called (separate covenants), and compared with one another, and
sometimes opposed to one another; the first and the last, the new and the old.
2. Because the covenant of grace in
Christ is eternal, immutable, always the same, subject [DMH15]to
no alteration, no change or abrogation; neither can these things be said of it
with respect to any administration of it as they are of the old covenant.
To state our thoughts rightly on this matter, and to
give shed what light we can on the truth, the following should be observed: —
1. When we speak of the “old
covenant,” we do not intend covenant of works made with Adam, and his whole
posterity in him; concerning which there is no difference or difficulty,
whether it be a distinct covenant from the new or no. It is undoubtedly
distinct.
2. When we speak of the “new covenant,”
we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before
in exstence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here.
For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed
through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of
the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all
things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only
excepted, grant that the covenant of
grace, considered absolutely, —
that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ,
—was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance
of sin.
But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a
covenant, without respect to any other things, nor was it called a covenant
under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is
said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham
was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised
Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of
grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the
Scripture,
Acts 2:39; For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Hebrews 6:14-16. Saying, Surely blessing
I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had
patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed
of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Galatians
3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits
of it. The nomoqesi>a, or full
legal establishment of it, when it became formally a covenant with the whole
church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament; for it needed
two things to be a formal covenant: —
(2.1.) It wanted its solemn
confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which
belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the
formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves,
Hebrews
9:15-23. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means
of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of
force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was
dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all
the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the
people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which
God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things
are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no
remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of
things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
For neither, as he shows, would the law given at Sinai
have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices.
The promise of the new covenant (“the covenant of grace”)was threfore not then
a formal and solemn covenant prior to its consummating sacrifice of the Lord
Christ..
(2.2.) The promise of the new
covenant (“the covenant of grace”) was
not a formal covenant since it was not the spring, rule, and measure of all the
worship of the church. This belongs to every covenant, properly so called, that
God makes with the church, to be the entire rule of all the worship that God
requires of it. But the covenant of
grace was not so under the old testament; for God required of the church then
many duties of worship that did not belong to the new covenant. But now, under
the new testament, the new covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is
the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Therefore the new covenant
promised in the Scripture, and here contrasted with the old, is not “merely”
the promise of grace, mercy, life, and salvation by Christ, absolutely
considered, but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given to it, in its
establishment by the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits,
and its declaration to be the only rule of worship and obedience for the
church. So that although by “the covenant of grace,” we often understand no
more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by “the
new covenant,” we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with
the establishment of that blessed way of worship which it settled in the
church. The “new covenant” is properly the full establishment of the eternal
“covenant of grace” as the rule of the church following its establishment by
the actual death of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. Whilst the church enjoyed all
the spiritual benefits of the promise, in which
the substance of the covenant of grace was contained, before it was
confirmed and made the sole rule of worship for the church, it was not
inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God to bring it under any other
covenant he chose, or to prescribe to it what forms of worship he pleased. This
is based upon these three suppositions[DMH16]:
—
(3.1.) That the Sinaitic covenant did
not disannul or make ineffectual the promise that was given before (to
Abraham), but that that still continued as the only means of life and
salvation. And that this was so, our apostle proves at large, Galatians 3:17-19.
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. 18 For if the
inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham
by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
(3.2.) That the Sinaitic covenant, with
all the worship contained in it and required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead towards, the future
establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a covenant, by the atoning
death of the Lord Christ And [DMcS17]that
the covenant made in Sinai, with all its ordinances, did so, the apostle
likewise proves lin Galatians 3:17-19, as also in the whole epistle to the
Hebrews.
(3.3.) That the law was of immediate
use and advantage to the church in its then present condition. This the apostle
acknowledges to be a great objection against the use and effectiveness of the
promise under the old testament, as to life and salvation; namely, ‘To what end
then serveth the giving of the law?’ which he answers, by showing the necessity
and use of the law to the church in its then present condition, Galatians 3:17-19.
4. Thaving 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.
The one is mentioned and described,eg in Exodus
24:3-8 and Deuteronomy 5:2-5,
Exodus
24:3-8,
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the
judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words
which the LORD hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the
words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under
the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent
young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and
sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of
the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the
altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in
the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we
do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the
people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made
with you concerning all these words.
Deuteronomy
5:2-5, —
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made
not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us
here alive this day. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the
mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between the LORD and you at that time,
to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and
went not up into the mount;) saying, namely, the covenant that God made with
the people of Israel in Sinai; and which is commonly called “the covenant,”
where the people under the old testament are said to keep or break God’s
covenant; which for the most part is spoken with respect unto that worship
which was peculiar to it.
The other is promised, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 32:40; which is the new or
gospel covenant, as before explained, mentioned Matthew26:28; Mark 14:24.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those
days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they
shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the
greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will
remember their sin no more.
Jeremiah 32:40
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn
away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that
they shall not depart from me.
Matthew26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.
Mark 14:24.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many.
And these two covenants, or testaments, are compared one with the other,
and opposed one to another, 2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Galatians 4:24-26;
Hebrews 7:22, 9:15-20.
2 Corinthians 3:6-9;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the
letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.7 But if the
ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that
the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the
glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not
the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration
of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness
exceed in glory.
Galatians 4:24-26;
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one
from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar
is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in
bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is
the mother of us all.
Hebrews 7:22
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 9:15-20
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means
of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of
force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth. 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was
dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all
the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which
God hath enjoined unto you.
These two we call “the old and the new testaments.” By
the “old testament” here, we do not mean the books of the Old Testament, or the
oracles of God committed then to the church, (Although they may once be so termed, in 2 Corinthians 3:14, “The
veil remaineth untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,” —that is, of
the books of it; unless the apostle
intends only the reading of the things which concern the old testament proper
in the Scripture;) . This old covenant, or testament, is abrogated and taken
away, as the apostle expressly proves, but the word of God in the books of the
Old Testament abides for ever. And those writings are called the Old Testament,
or the books of the Old Testament, not as though they contained in them nothing
but what belongs to the old covenant, for they contain the doctrine of the New
Testament also; but they are so termed because they were committed to the
church while the old covenant was in force, as the rule and law of its worship
and obedience.
5. Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a
twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended. We must do so,
provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. 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 [DMH18]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.
Having
shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this
distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several
things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to
have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of
grace: —
1 This
covenant, called “the old covenant,” was never intended to be of itself the
absolute rule and law of life and salvation for the church, but was made with a
particular design, and for particular ends. This the apostle proves undeniably
in this epistle, especially in the Hebrews 7, 9 &10 (or 8 &9?). Hence
it follows that it could abrogate or disannul nothing which God at any time
before had given as a general rule to the church. For the particular cannot
abrogate any thing that was general, and prior, in the way that the general
does abrogate all preceding particulars, as the new covenant abrogates the old.
This we must consider in both the instances here. For, —
(1.1.) God had previously given the
covenant of works, or perfect obedience, to all mankind in Adam and Eve, in the
law of creation. But this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that
covenant, nor in any way fulfill it. And the reason is, because it was never
intended to take its place, as a covenant, containing an entire rule of all the
faith and obedience of the whole church. God did not intend in it to abrogate
the covenant of works, and to substitute this in its place; in fact, in several
things it re-enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant. For, —
[1.1.1.] It revived, declared, and expressed all the
commands of that covenant in the decalogue; for that is nothing but a divine
summary of the law written in the heart of man at his creation. And here the
dreadful manner of its delivery or promulgation, with its writing in tablets of
stone, is also to be considered; for in them the nature of that first covenant,
with its inexorableness as to perfect obedience, was represented. And because
no-one could answer its demands, or comply with it in this, it was called “the
ministration of death,” causing fear and bondage, 2
Corinthians 3:7.
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face
of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
[1.1.2.] It revived the sanction of the first covenant,
in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors.
Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day
that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and
re-presented in the curse with which this covenant was ratified,
Deuteronomy 27:26;
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this
law to do them,
and Galatians 3:10.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them.
For the design of God in it was to bind a sense of that
curse on the consciences of men, until He came by whom it was taken away, as
the apostle declares,
Galatians 3:19.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by
angels in the hand of a mediator
[1.1.3.] It revived the promise of that covenant, —that
of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses
describeth the righteousness of the law thus, “That the man which doeth those
things shall live by them,”
Romans 10:5;
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man
which doeth those things shall live by them.
as Moses does, Leviticus
18:5.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do,
he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived.
Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed to it, as
such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it
revived, saying, “Do this, and live.”
Hence it is, that when our apostle disputes against
justification by the law,or by the works of the law, he does not intend the
works peculiar to the covenant of Sinai, as were the rites and ceremonies of
the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first
covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed to them.
And so it follows also, that it was not a new covenant
of works established in the place of the first, for the absolute rule of faith
and obedience for the whole church; for then it would have abrogated and taken
away that first covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not.
(1.2.) The other instance is in the
promise. This also went before it; neither was it abrogated or disannulled by
the introduction of this Sinaitic covenant. This promise was given to our first
parents immediately after the entrance of sin, and was established as
containing the only way and means of the salvation of sinners. Now, this
promise could not be abrogated by the introduction of this covenant, and a new
way of justification and salvation
thereby established. For the promise, being given out in general for the
whole church, as containing the way appointed by God for righteousness, life,
and salvation, could not be disannulled or changed, without a change and
alteration in the counsels of Him “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning.” Much less could this be effected by a particular covenant, such as
Sinai was, when the promise had been as a general and eternal rule.
2. But
while there was an especial promise given to Abraham, in the faith of which he
became “the father of the faithful,” he being their progenitor, it should seem
that this Sinaitic covenant wholly disannulled or superseded that promise, and
took the church of his posterity from building on that foundation, and so fixed
them wholly on this “new” (Sinaitic) covenant now made with them. As Moses
says,
Deuteronomy 5:3.
“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but
with us, who are all of us here alive this day,”
God did not make this covenant on mount Sinai with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with the people then present, and their
posterity, as he declares,
Deuteronomy 29:14, 15.
Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;15 But with him
that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him
that is not here with us this day:
This, therefore, should seem to take them off wholly
from that promise made to Abraham, and so to disannul it. But that this it did
not, nor could not do as the apostle strictly proves, Galatians
3:17-22. Indeed, it established that promise, both as first given and as
afterwards confirmed with the oath of God to Abraham, two ways especially: —
(2.1.) Sinai declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and
peace with God any other way but by the promise. For by re-presenting the
commands of the original covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless
obedience, under the penalty of the curse, it convinced men that this was no
way for sinners to seek for life and salvation. And with this it so strongly
urged the consciences of men, that they could have no rest nor peace in
themselves but that afforded by the promise, of which they better saw their
need.
(2.2.) By representing, through typical
ceremonies of sacrifice and atonement, the ways and means of ultimate
accomplishment of the promise, on which all its
effictiveness for the
justification and salvation of sinners depends. This was the death,
blood-shedding, oblation, or sacrifice of Christ, the promised seed. This was
what all its offerings and ordinances of worship pointed to; as his
incarnation, with the inhabitation of God in his human nature, was typified by
the tabernacle and temple. So the Sinaitic, or old covenant or Law was so far
from disannulling the promise, or diverting the minds of the people of God from
it, that by all means it established it and led to it. But, —
3. It
will be said, as was before observed, ‘That if it the Sinaitic covenant neither
abrogated the first covenant of works, and replace that, nor disannul the
promise made to Abraham, then what end did it serve, or what benefit did the
church receive by it?’ I answer, —
(3.1.) There has been, with respect to
God’s dealing with the church, oijkonomi>atw~n kairw~n, —a “certain
dispensation” and disposition of times and seasons, reserved to the sovereign
will and pleasure of God. Hence from the beginning he revealed himself polutro>pwv and
polumerw~v,
as seemed good to him,
Hebrews 1:1
God, who at several times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets,.
And this dispensation of times had a plh>rwma, a “fullness” assigned to it, in which all things,
that belong to the revelation and communication of God to the church, should
come to their height, and be completed This was in the sending of Christ, as
the apostle declares,
Ephesians 1:10,
“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he
might bring all unto a head in Christ.”
Until this season came, God dealt variously with the
church, ejn poiki>lh |sofi>a|,
“in manifold” or “various wisdom,” according as he saw it needful and useful
for it, in that season which it was to pass through, before the fullness of
times came. This was the nature of his
entrance into the covenant with the church at Sinai; the reasons for which we
shall immediately inquire into. In the meantime, if we had no other answer to
this inquiry but this, that in the order of the disposal of the seasons of the
church, before the fullness of times came, God in his wisdom saw it necessary
for the church in that season, we may well acquiesce in that. But, —
(3.2.) The apostle acquaints us in
general with the ends of this dispensation of God, Galatians
3:19-24: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it
was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one,
but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if
there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness
should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto[DMH19]
the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
Much light might be given to the mind of the Holy Spirit in these words, and
that in things not commonly discerned by expositors, if we should divert to
examine them. I will at present only mark from them what is to our present
purpose.
(3.3)There is a twofold inquiry made here by the apostle
with respect to the law, or the covenant of Sinai:
[1.] What end
did it serve.
[2.] Whether
it was then contrary to the promise of God.
Paul answers both from the nature, office, and work of
that covenant. For there were, as has been declared, two things in it:
[1[DMH20].] A revival and re-presentation
of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse.
[2.] A
direction of the church to the accomplishment of the promise.
From these the apostle frames his answer to the twofold
inquiry.
And to the first inquiry, “what end it served,” he
answers, “It was added because of transgressions.” Since the promise being
given, there might seem to have been no need of the law, why then was it added
to it at that season? “It was added because of transgressions.” The fullness of
time was not yet come, when the promise was to be fulfilled, accomplished and
established as the only covenant the church would have with God. In short, the
“seed” was not yet come to whom the
promise was made. In the meantime a stand was necessary over sin and
transgression, to prevent them overrunning of the order of things appointed by
God. And this was done two ways by the law: —
[1.] By reviving the commands of the covenant of works,
with the sanction of death, it put an awe on the minds of men, and set bounds
to their lusts, that they should not dare to sin to that excess which they were
naturally inclined unto. The Law was therefore “added because of
transgressions;” that, by the declaration of God’s severity against
transgressions, some limits might be fixed for conduct and transgression; for
“by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
[2.] To shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek
for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the
covenant of works, and the curse attending it. “It concluded” or “shut up all
under sin,” saith the apostle, Galatians 3:22. This was the purpose of the law, for
this end was it added, as it revived the covenant of works.
To the second inquiry, that follows from this purpose of
the law, namely, that the law convinced of sin, and condemned for sin, that is,
“whether it is then contrary to the
grace of God,” the apostle also returns a double answer, taken from the second
use of the law, before insisted on, with respect to the promise.
And, —
[1.] He says, ‘That
[DMH21]although
the law doth thus rebuke sin, convince of sin, and condemn for sin, so setting
bounds to transgressions and transgressors, yet did God never intend it as a
means to give life and righteousness, nor was it able so to do.’
The end of the promise was to give righteousness,
justification, and salvation, all by Christ, to whom and concerning whom the
promise was made. But this was not the end for which the law was revived in the
covenant of Sinai. For although in itself it requires a perfect righteousness,
and gives a promise of life on that condition, (“He that doeth these things, he
shall live in them,”) yet it could give neither righteousness nor life to any
in the state of sin. See Romans 8:3 and 10:4,
Romans 8:3,
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin
in the flesh:
Romans 10:4.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.
Therefore since the promise and the Law have diverse
ends, they are not contrary to one another.
[2.] Saith Paul[DMH22],
‘The law has a great respect unto the promise; and was given of God for this
very end, that it might lead and direct men unto Christ;’ —which is sufficient
to answer the question proposed at the beginning of this discourse, about the
purpose of this covenant, and its advantage to the church. What has been said
may suffice to declare the nature of this covenant in general; and two things
evidently follow, in which the substance of the whole truth contended for by
the apostle consist: —
(1.) That whilst the
covenant of grace was contained and proposed only in the promise, before it was
solemnly confirmed in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, and so legalized or
established as the only rule of the worship of the church, the introduction of
this other covenant on Sinai did not constitute a new way or means of
righteousness, life, and salvation; but believers sought for them alone by the
covenant of grace as declared in the promise. This follows evidently from our
discourse; and it secures absolutely that great fundamental truth, which the
apostle in this and all his other epistles so earnestly contends for, namely,
that there neither is, nor ever was, either righteousness, justification, life,
or salvation, to be attained by any law, or the its works, (for this covenant
at mount Sinai comprehended every law that God ever gave to the church,) but by Christ alone, and
faith in him.
(2.) That whereas this covenant being introduced in the pleasure of God,
there was prescribed with it a form of outward worship suited to that
dispensation of times and state of the church. On the introduction of the new
covenant in the fullness of times, to be the rule of all intercourse between
God and the church, both that old ovenant and all its worship must be
disannulled. This the apostle proves with all sorts of arguments, manifesting
the great advantage of the new covenant to the church.
These things evidently follow from the preceding discourses, and are the
main truths the apostle contends for in the text.
4. There
remains only [DMH23]one
thing more to be considered, before we enter on the comparison between the two
covenants (directed by the apostle). And this is, how this first covenant came
to be a special covenant to that people: in which we shall give the reason for
its introduction at that season. To this end several things are to be
considered concerning that people and the church of God in them, with whom this
covenant was made; which will further show the nature, use, and necessity of
it: —
(4.1.) This people were the posterity
of Abraham, to whom the promise was made that in his seed all the nations of
the earth should be blessed. Wherefore from among them was the promised Seed to
be raised up in the fullness of time, ( its proper season,) — from among them
was the Son of God to take on him the seed of Abraham. To this end several
things were necessary: —
[4.4.1.] That they should have a certain abiding place
or country, which they might freely inhabit, distinct from other nations, and
under a rule or sceptre of their own. So it is said of them, that
“the people should dwell alone, and not be reckoned
among the nations,” Numbers 23:9; and
“the sceptre was not to depart from them until Shiloh
came,” Genesis 49:10.
For God had regard to his own glory in his faithfulness
to his oath given to Abraham, not only that it should be accomplished, but that
its accomplishment should be evident and conspicuous. But if this posterity of
Abraham, from among whom the promised Seed was to rise, had been, as it is
today, scattered abroad on the face of the earth, mixed with all nations, and
under their power (remember [DMH24]the
modern state of Israel is not Biblical people of Israel), although God might
have accomplished his promise in raising up Christ from among some of his
posterity, yet could it not be proved or demonstrated that he had so done, by
reason of the confusion and mixture of the people with others. Wherefore God
provided a land and country for them to inhabit by themselves as their own,
even the land of Canaan. This was so suited to all the purposes of God towards
that people that God is said to have “espied this land out for them,” Ezekiel 20:6. He chose it out,
as most suitable for his purpose towards that people of all the lands under
heaven.
[4.1.2.] That there should be always kept among them an
open confession and visible representation of the purpose for which they were
so separated from all the nations of the world. They were not to dwell in the
land of Canaan merely for secular ends, and to make as it were a dumb show; but
as they were there maintained and preserved to demostrate the faithfulness of
God in bringing forth the promised Seed in the fullness of time, so there was
to be a testimony kept up among them to that end of God for which they were
preserved. This was the purpose of all their ordinances of worship, of the
tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifices and ordinances; which were all appointed by
Moses, on the command of God, “for a testimony of those things which should be
spoken afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5. These things were necessary in the first
place, with respect to the purposes of God towards that people.
(4.2.) It does not become the wisdom,
holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into a special relation to
himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer
them to live as they please, with no regard to what he has done for them.
Wherefore, having granted this people those great privileges of the land of
Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating to the great purpose mentioned,
he moreover prescribed to them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, on which
conditions they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges
annexed to its possession. And these are both expressed and frequently inculcated[DMH25],
in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet in the prescription of these
terms, God reserved the sovereignty of dealing with them to himself. For had he
left them to stand or fall absolutely by the terms prescribed to them, they
might and would have utterly forfeited both the land and all the privileges
they enjoyed. And had it so transpired, then the great purpose of God in
preserving them as a separate people until the Seed should come, and a representation thereof among them[DMH26],
had been frustrated. Wherefore, although he punished them for their
transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not
bring the µr,je , or “curse of the law,” upon them, and utterly
cast them off, until his great end was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6.
(4.3.) God would not altogether take [DMH27]this
people from the promise, because his church was among them, and they (the
church) could neither please God nor be accepted with him but by faith in the
promise. But yet they were to be dealt with appropriately for they were
generally a people of a hard heart, and stiff-necked, lifted up with an opinion
of their own righteousness and worth above others. This Moses endeavours to
cure them of, in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet it was not achieved among the
bulk of them, nor is it to this day; for in the midst of all their wickedness
and misery, they still trust to and boast of their own righteousness, and will
have it that God has a special obligation to them on that account. For this
cause God saw it necessary, and it pleased him to put a grievous and heavy yoke
upon them, to subdue the pride of their spirits, and to cause them to long for
deliverance. This the apostle Peter calls “a yoke that neither they nor their
fathers were able to bear,” Acts 15:10;
that is, with peace, ease, and rest: which therefore the Lord Christ invited
them to seek in himself alone, Matthew
11:29, 30. And this yoke that God put on them consisted in these three things:
—
[4.3.1.] In a multitude of precepts, hard to be
understood, and difficult to be observed. The present Jews reckon up six
hundred and thirteen of them; about the sense of most of which they dispute
endlessly among themselves. But the truth is, since the days of the Pharisees
they have increased their own yoke, and made obedience to their law in any
tolerable manner altogether impracticable. It is easy to show, for instance,
that no man under heaven ever did, or ever can, keep the Sabbath according to
the rules they give about it in the Talmud. And they generally scarce observe
one of them themselves. But in the law, as given by God himself, it is certain
that there are a multitude of arbitrary precepts, not in themselves accompanied
with any spiritual advantages, as our apostle shows,
Hebrews 9:9, 10;
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as
pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers
washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
only they were obliged to perform them by a mere
sovereign act of power and authority.
[4.3.2.] In the severity with which the observance of
all those precepts was enjoined them. And this was the threat of death; for “he
that despised Moses’ law died without mercy,” and “every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompence of reward.” Hence their complaint of
old, Numbers 17:12, 13.
“Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever
cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the LORD shall die: shall we be consumed
with dying?”
And the curse against every one that breached the law
was continually before them.
[4.3.3.] In a spirit of bondage to fear. This was
administered in the giving and dispensation of the law, even as a spirit of
liberty and power is administered in and by the gospel. And as this was with
respec to their present obedience, and manner of performing it, so in particular it regarded
death not yet conquered by Christ. Hence our apostle affirms, that “through
fear of death they were all their lifetime subject unto bondage.” God brought
them into this state partly to subdue the pride of their hearts, and their
trust in their own righteousness, and partly to cause them to look out
earnestly for the promised deliverer.
(4.4.) Into this state and condition
God brought them by a solemn covenant, confirmed by mutual consent between him
and them. The tenor, force, and solemn ratification of this covenant, are
expressed, Exodus 24:3-8.
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the
judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words
which the LORD hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the
words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under
the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent
young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and
sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of
the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the
altar.7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in
the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we
do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the
people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made
with you concerning all these words.
The whole church was obliged indispensably to the terms
and conditions of this covenant, on pain of extermination, until all was
accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. To this covenant
belonged the decalogue, with all precepts of moral obedience summarised in them
thence educed[DMH28]. So also did the laws of political rule
established among them, and the whole system of religious worship given to
them. All these laws were brought within the terms of this covenant, and were
the substance of it. And it had special promises and threatenings annexed to it
as such; none of which passed the bounds
of the land of Canaan. For many of the laws had no force outside Canaan, such
as the law of the sabbatical year, and all their sacrifices. There was sin and
obedience in these laws or about them in the land of Canaan, but none
elsewhere. Hence, —
(4.5.) This covenant thus made, with
these purposes and promises, never saved nor condemned any man eternally. All
that lived under it attained eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by
virtue of this covenant as such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power
and sanction of the first covenant of works; and in this, as the apostle says,
was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Corinthians: 3:9; for “by the deeds of
the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also to
the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation to all that did
believe. But as to what the old covenant had of its own, it was confined to temporal
things. Believers were saved while under it, but not by virtue of it.
Sinners perished eternally while under it, but by the curse of the original
law of works. And, —
(4.6.) Here occasionally arose the ruin of
that people; “their table became a snare unto them, and that which should have
been for their welfare became a trap,” according to the prediction of our
Saviour, Psalm 69:22. It was this
covenant that raised and ruined them. It raised them to glory and honour when
given by God; it ruined them when abused by themselves to ends contrary to the
express declarations of his mind and will. For although mostly they were wicked
and rebellious, always breaking the terms of the covenant so far as it was
possible they should, whilst God determined to reign over them to the appointed
season; yet they would have this covenant to be the only rule and means of
righteousness, life, and salvation, as the apostle declares, Romans
9:31-33, 10:3.
9:31But Israel, which followed after the law of
righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore?
Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.
For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written,
Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever
believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness,
and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For, as we have
often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused to other ends
than what God designed them: —
[
4.6.1.] There was the renovation of the rule of the
covenant of works for righteousness and life. And this they would have (wanted,
desired) to be given to them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by
the works of the law.
[4.6.2.] There was ordained in the Law a typical
representation of the way and means whereby the promise was to be fulfilled,
namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; which was the purpose
of all their ordinances of worship. And the outward law of these things, with
the observance of its institution, they looked on erroneously as their only
relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness.Against both
these pernicious errors the apostle disputes expressly in his epistles to the
Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible, from the ruin they
were casting themselves into. In this “the elect obtained,” but “the rest were
hardened.” For by doing as they did they made an absolute renunciation of the
promise, in which alone God had wrapped the way of life and salvation.
This is the nature and substance of that covenant which
God made with that people at Sinai; it was a particular, temporary covenant,
and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That which remains for the declaration of the mind of the Holy Spirit in
this whole matter, is to declare the differences that are
between those two covenants, for which the one is said to be “better” than the
other, and to be “built upon better promises.”
Those of the church of Rome [DMH29]do commonly
place this difference in three things:
1. In the promises of each of them: which in the old covenant were
temporal only; in the new, spiritual and heavenly.
2. In the precepts of them: which under the old, required only external
obedience, designing the righteousness of the outward man; under the new, they
are internal, respecting principally the inner man of the heart.
3. In their sacraments: for those under the old testament were only
outwardly figurative; but those of the new are operative of grace.
But these things do not express much, if any thing at all, of what the
Scripture places the difference in. And besides, as by some of Rome explained,
they are not true, especially the latter two. I cannot but admire how it came
into the heart or mind of any man to think or say, that God ever gave a laws or
precepts, that should “respect the outward man only, and the regulation of
external duties.” Such a thought is contrary to all the essential properties of
the nature of God, and liable only to generate wrong understandings of him
quite unsuited to his glorious excellencies.
The life and foundation of all the laws under the old testament was,
“Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all
thy soul;” without which no outward obedience was ever accepted by him.
And for the third of the supposed differences, the sacraments of the law
were not so barely “figurative,” that they failed to exhibit Christ to
believers: for “they all drank of the spiritual rock; which rock was Christ.”
Nor are those of the gospel so operative of grace, but that without faith they
are also useless to them that do receive them.
The things in which the difference does consist, as expressed in the
Scripture, are partly circumstantial, and partly substantial, and may be
reduced to the following heads: —
These two covenants differ in the circumstance of time
as to their promulgation, declaration, and establishment. This difference the
apostle expresses from the prophet Jeremiah, in the ninth verse of this
chapter, where it must be more fully
spoken unto. [DMH30]In
brief, the first covenant was made at the time that God brought the children of
Israel out of Egypt, and took its date from the third month after their coming
up from thence, Exodus 19:24. From the time of
what is reported there, where the people give their actual consent to the terms
of it, it began its formal obligation as a covenant. And we must inquire when
it was abrogated and ceased to oblige the church. The new covenant was declared
and made known “in the latter days,” Hebrews
1:1, 2; “in the dispensation of the fullness of times,” Ephesians 1:10. And it took
date, as a covenant formally obliging the whole church, from the
death,resurrection, ascension of Christ, and sending of the Holy Spirit. I
bring them all into the epoch of this covenant, because though principally it
was established by the first of these (Calvary), it was not absolutely
obligatory as a covenant until after the last of them (Pentecost).
They differ in the circumstance of place as to their
promulgation; which the Scripture also takes notice of. The first was declared
on mount Sinai; the manner of which, and the station of the people in receiving
the law, I have in my Exercitations on
the first part of this Exposition at large declared, and thither the reader is
referred,f5 Exodus 19:18[DMH31].
The other was declared on mount Zion, and the law of it went forth from
Jerusalem, Isaiah 2:3.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of
his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the
law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
This difference, with many remarkable instances from it,
our apostle insists on, Galatians
4:24-26: “These are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” That is, Agar, the bondwoman whom Abraham
took before the heir of promise was born. She was a type of the old covenant
given on Sinai, before the introduction of the new, or the covenant of promise;
for so he adds: “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to
Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” This mount Sinai,
where the old covenant was given, and which was represented by Agar, is in
Arabia, —cast quite out of the verge and
confines of the church. And it “answereth,” or “is placed in the same series,
rank, and order with Jerusalem,” namely, in the opposition of the two
covenants. For as the new covenant, the covenant of promise, giving freedom and
liberty, was given at Jerusalem, in the death and resurrection of Christ, with
the preaching of the gospel which followed on it; so the old covenant, that
brought the people into bondage, was given at mount Sinai in Arabia.
They differ in the manner of their promulgation and
establishment. There were two remarkable things that accompanied the solemn
declaration of the first covenant: —
(3.1.) The dread and terror of the
outward appearance on mount Sinai, which filled all the people, and Moses
himself, with fear and trembling, Hebrews
12:18-21;
12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be
touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and
tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of
words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken
to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was
commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or
thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I
exceedingly fear and quake:)
Exodus 19:16, 20:18,19.
19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the
morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the
mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that
was in the camp trembled.
20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the
lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when
the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.19 And they said unto
Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us,
lest we die.
Together with this a spirit of fear and bondage was
administered to all the people, so that
they chose to keep at a distance, and not to draw nigh unto God, Deuteronomy 5:23-27.
5:23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out
of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye
came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; 24 And ye said,
Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we
have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that
God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should
we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD
our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all
flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of
the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God
shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto
thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
(3.2.) That it was given by the
ministry and “disposition of angels,” Acts
7:53; Galatians 3:19. Hence the people
were in a sense “put in subjection unto angels,” and angels had an
authoritative ministry in that covenant. The church that then was, was put into
some kind of subjection to angels, as the apostle plainly intimates, Hebrews 2:5.
2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection
the world to come, whereof we speak.
Hence the worshipping or adoration of angels began among
that people, Colossians 2:18;
2:18” Let no man
beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,
intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind,”
-which some even now, as an addition to their error and
superstition, would introduce into the Christian church, in which the angels
have no such authoritative ministry as they had under the old covenant.
Things are quite otherwise in the promulgation of the
new covenant. The Son of God in his own person did declare it. This he “spake
from heaven,”as the apostle observes; in opposition to the giving of the law
“on the earth,” Hebrews 12:25.
12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if
they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape,
if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Yet did he speak
on the earth also; the mystery of which he himself declares, John 3:13.
3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
And he did all the things that established this covenant
in a spirit of meekness and condescension, with the highest evidence of love,
grace, and compassion, encouraging and inviting the weary, the burdened,and the
heavy laden to come to him. And by his Spirit he makes his disciples carry on
the same work until the covenant was fully declared, Hebrews 2:3.
2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
unto us by them that heard him;
See John 1:17,
18.
1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and
truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
And the whole ministry of angels, in the giving of this
covenant, was merely in a way of service and obedience to Christ; and they
owned themselves the “fellow-servants” only of them that have “the testimony of
Jesus,” Revelation 19:10.
19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he
said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren
that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is
the spirit of prophecy.
So that this “world to come,” as it was called of old,
that is the new covenant, was no way put in subjection unto angels.
They differ in their mediators. The mediator of the
first covenant was Moses. “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator,” Galatians 3:19. And this was no
other than Moses, who was a servant in the house of God, Hebrews 3:5. And he was a
mediator, by God’s design, chosen by the people, following the dread that
befell them on the terrible promulgation of the law. For they saw that they could no way bear the
immediate presence of God, nor deal with him in their own persons. Wherefore
they desired that there might be a go-between, a mediator between God and them,
and that Moses might be the person, Deuteronomy
5:24-27.
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed
us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of
the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore
why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of
the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all
flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of
the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God
shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto
thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
But the mediator
of the new covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom
for all,” 1 Timothy 2:5. He who is the
Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to
be the mediator of this
covenant; and in this the new covenant is unspeakably
superior to the old covenant.
They differ in their subject-matter, both as to precepts
and to promises, the advantage being on
the part of the new covenant. For, —
(5.1.) The old covenant, in the
preceptive part of it, renewed the commands of the covenant of works on their
original terms. It forbade sin, — that is, all and every sin, in deed and
thought, act and attitude,— on pain of death; and it gave the promise of life
for perfect, sinless obedience only: from which the decalogue itself, as a transcript of the law of works,
is called “the covenant,” Exodus 34:28
34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and
forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the
tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments..
And besides this, as observed before, it had innumerable
other precepts, suited to the condition of the people, and imposed on them with
rigour.
But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is
proposed, is the fulfilment and
establishment of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and its
sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator. In this the commands
of the new covenant to the covenanters are not grievous; the yoke of Christ
being easy, and his burden light.
(5.2.) The old testament, absolutely
considered, had,
[1.] No promise of grace, to communicate spiritual
strength, or to assist us in obedience;
[2.] Nor promise of eternal life, any otherwise than as
had been contained in the promise of the original covenant of works, ie “The
man that doeth these things shall live in them;” and,
[3.] Contained promises of temporal things in the land
of Canaan as inseparable parts of it.
In the new covenant all these things are otherwise, as
will be declared[DMH32].
They differ principally in the manner of their
dedication and sanction. This is what provides the formal nature of a covenant
or testament. There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general,
which has not the formal nature of a covenant, or testament, — and such was the
covenant of grace before the death of Christ, — but it is the solemnity and
manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or
agreement, that give it the formal nature of a covenant or testament. And this
is by a sacrifice, in which there is both blood shedding and death following
from it. Now this, in the confirmation of the old covenant, was only the
sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people, Exodus 24:5-8.
24:5-8 And he sent young men of the children of Israel,
which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the
LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in
basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took
the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they
said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses
took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of
the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
But the new
testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, Zechariah 9:11;
9:11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I
have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
Hebrews 10:29, 13:20.
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath
counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy
thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the
dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
everlasting covenant,
And the Lord Christ dying as the mediator and surety of
the covenant, he purchased all good things for the church; and as a testator
bequeathed them to it. Hence he says of the sacramental cup, that it is “the
new testament in his blood,” or the pledge of his bequeathing to the church all
the promises and mercies of the covenant; which is the new testament, or the
disposition of his goods to his children. This
is fully considered in
John Owen onHebrews 9:18-23, (we must thither refer the full
consideration of it).[DMH33]
They differ in the priests that were to officiate before
God on behalf of the people. In the old covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone
were to discharge that office; in the new covenant, the Son of God himself is
the only priest of the church. This difference, with the advantage of the
gospel-state established on it has been
handled at large in the exposition of the chapter foregoing.[DMH34]
They differ in the sacrifices on which the tendered
peace and reconciliation with God
tendered depends. And this also must be spoken to in the ensuing chapter, [DMH35]if
God permit.
They differ in the way and manner of their solemn
writing or enrolment. All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of
brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the
parties concerned. So the old covenant, as to the principal, fundamental part
of it, was “engraven in tables of stone,” which were kept in the ark, Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10;
2 Corinthians 3:7. And God so ordered it in his providence, that the first
draft of them should be broken, to intimate that the covenant contained in them
was not everlasting nor unalterable. But the new covenant is written in the
“fleshy tables of the hearts” of them that do believe
2 Corinthians 3:3; Jeremiah
31:33.
They differ in their ends (purposes). The principal end
of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it, and to set bounds to
it. So says the apostle, “It was added because of transgressions.” And this it
did several ways: —
(1.) By conviction: for “by the law
is the knowledge of sin;” it convinced sinners, and caused every mouth to be
stopped before God.
(2.) By condemning the sinner, in an
application of the sanction of the law to his conscience.
(3.) By the judgments and punishments
by which on all occasions it was accompanied. In all it manifested and
represented the justice and severity of God.
The end of the new covenant is, to declare the love,
grace, and mercy of God; and from these to give repentance, remission of sin,
and eternal life.
11. They differed in their effects.
For the first covenant being the “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it
brought the minds and spirits of those under it into servitude and bondage;
whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the new testament. And
there is no one thing in which the Spirit of God more frequently gives us an
account of the difference between these two covenants, than in the liberty of
the one and the bondage of the other. See
Romans 8:15; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 4:1-7, 24, 26, 30, 31;
Hebrews 2:14, 15.
Romans 8:15
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again
to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father.
2 Corinthians 3:17;
3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Galatians 4:1-7, 24, 26, 30, 31;
4:1-7 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a
child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time
appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in
bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of
the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore
thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God
through Christ.
4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the
two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which
is Agar.
4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is
the mother of us all.
4:30-31 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out
the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with
the son of the freewoman.31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the
bondwoman, but of the free.
Hebrews 2:14, 15.
2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through
death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver
them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
This, therefore, we must explain. Why the bondage which
was the effect of the old covenant arose from several causes concurring to that
effect: —
(11.1.1.) The renovation of the terms and
sanction of the covenant of works contributed much to this. For the people did
not see how the commands of that covenant could be observed, nor how its curse
could be avoided. They could not see it
by any thing in the covenant of Sinai; which therefore “gendered unto
bondage.” All the prospect they had of deliverance was from the promise.
(11.1.2.) It arose from the manner of the
delivery of the law, and God’s so entering into covenant with them. This was
ordered on purpose to fill them with dread and fear. And it could not but do
so, whenever they remembered it.
(11.1.3.) From the severity of the penalties
annexed to the transgression of the law. God had taken upon himself, that where
punishment was not exacted according to the law, he himself would “cut them
off.” This kept them always anxious and solicitous, not knowing when they were
safe or secure.
(11.1.4.) From the nature of the whole
ministry of the law, which was the “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” 2 Corinthians 3:7, 9; which
declared the desert of every sin to be death, and denounced death to every
sinner, administering no relief to the minds and consciences of men. So it was
the “letter that killed” those that were under its power.
(11.1.5.) From the darkness of their own
minds, in the means, ways, and causes of deliverance from all these things. It
is true, they had the promise before the
Law of life and salvation, and it was not abolished by this covenant, even the
promise made to Abraham; but this did not belong to this covenant, and the way
of its accomplishment, by the incarnation and mediation of the Son of God, was
hidden from them, —even from the prophets themselves who yet foretold these
things. This left them under bondage. For the principal cause and means of the
liberty believers have under the gospel,
arises from the clear knowledge they have of the mystery of the love and grace
of God in Christ. This knowledge and faith of his incarnation,
humiliation, sufferings, and sacrifice, by which he made
atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, is what gives them
liberty and boldness in their obedience, 2
Corinthians 3:17, 18. Whilst those of old were in the dark as to these things,
they must needs have been kept under much bondage.
(11.1.6.) It was increased by the yoke of
a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies, imposed on them; which made the whole
of their worship a burden unto them, and insupportable, Acts 15:10.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
In and by all these ways and means there was a spirit of
bondage and fear administered to them. And God dealt with them thus so that
they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance.
On the other hand, the new covenant gives liberty and
boldness, the liberty and boldness of children, to all believers. It is the
Spirit of the Son in it that makes us free, or gives us universally all that
liberty which is any way needful or useful to us. For “where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is liberty;” namely, to serve God, “not in the oldness of the
letter, but in the newness of the spirit.” And it is declared that this was the
great end of bringing in the new covenant, in the accomplishment of the promise
made to Abraham, namely, “that we being delivered out of the hand of our
enemies, might serve God without fear ...... all the days of our life,” Luke
1:72-75. And we may briefly consider in what things this deliverance and liberty by the new
covenant consists, as follows: —
(11.2.1.) In our freedom from the
commanding power of the law, as to sinless, perfect obedience, in order for
righteousness and justification before God. Its commands we are still subject
to, but not for life and salvation; for
to these ends it is fulfilled in and by the mediator of the new covenant, who
is “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” Romans
10:4.
(11.2.2.) In our freedom from the
condemning power of the law, and the sanction of it in the curse. This being
undergone and answered by him who was “made a curse for us,” we are freed from
it, Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:13, 14. And here we
are also “delivered from the fear of death,” Hebrews
2:15, as it was penal and an entrance into judgment or condemnation, John 5:24.
(11.2.3.) In our freedom from conscience
of sin, Hebrews 10:2, — that is,
conscience disquieting, perplexing, and condemning us; the hearts of all that
believe being “sprinkled from an evil conscience” by the blood of Christ.
(11.2.4.) In our freedom from the whole
system of Mosaic worship, in all the rites, and ceremonies, and ordinances of
it; which the apostles declared to be such a burden, Acts 15, and our apostle
in his epistle to the Galatians.
(11.2.5.) From all the laws of men in
things pertaining to the worship of God, 1
Corinthians 7:23. And by all these, and the like instances of spiritual
liberty, the gospel frees believers from that “spirit of bondage unto fear,”
which was administered under the old covenant.
It remains only that we point out the heads of those
ways this liberty is communicated to us under the new covenant. It is done,—
(11.3.1.) Principally by the grant and
communication of the Spirit of the Son as a Spirit of adoption, giving the
freedom, boldness, and liberty of children, John
1:12; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:6, 7. From hence the
apostle lays it down as a certain rule, that “where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty,” 2 Corinthians 3:17. Let men
pretend what they will, let them boast of the freedom of their outward
condition in this world, and of the inward liberty or freedom of their wills,
there is indeed no true liberty
where there is not the Spirit of God. The ways in which
he gives freedom, power, soundness of mind, spiritual boldness, courage,
contempt of the cross, holy confidence before God, readiness for obedience, and enlargedness of
heart in duties, with all other things in which true liberty consists, or which
any way belong to it, I must not here divert to declare. The world judges that
there is no bondage except where the
Spirit of God is; for he gives that conscientious fear of sin, that awe of God
in all our thoughts, actions, and ways, that careful and circumspect walking,
that temperance in things lawful, that abstinence from all appearance of evil,
which they judge to be the greatest bondage on earth. But those who have
received him, know that the whole world lies in evil, and that those to whom
spiritual liberty is a bondage are the servants and slaves of Satan.
(11.3.2.) It is obtained by the evidence
of our justification before God, and the causes of our justification before
Godit. Men were largely in the dark about this under the first covenant,
although all stable peace with God depends on it; for it is in the gospel that
“the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith,” Romans 1:17.
Indeed “the righteousness of God without the law is witnessed by the law and
the prophets,” Romans 3:21; that is, testimony
is given to it in legal institutions and the promises recorded in the prophets.
But these things were obscure to them who were to seek for it under the veils
and shadows of priests and sacrifices, atonements and expiations. But our justification before God, and all the
causes of it, is now fully revealed and made plain and has a great influence on
spiritual liberty and boldness.
(11.3.3.) By the spiritual knowledge which
is given to believers into the mystery of God in Christ. This the apostle
affirms to have been “hid in God from the beginning of the world,” Ephesians 3:9. It was planned
and prepared in the counsel and wisdom of God from all eternity. Some
intimation of it was given in the first promise, Gen 3:15? and it was
afterwards foreshadowed by several legal institutions; but the depth, the
glory, the beauty and fullness of it, were “hid in God,” in his mind and will,
until it was fully revealed in the gospel The saints under the old testament
believed that they should be delivered by the promised Seed, that they should
be saved for the Lord’s sake, that the Angel of the covenant would save them,
that the Lord himself would come to his temple; and they diligently inquired
into what was prophesied concerning “the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow.” But all this while their thoughts and conceptions were
greatly in the dark as to those glorious things which are made so plain in the
new covenant, concerning the incarnation, mediation, sufferings, and sacrifice
of the Son of God, —concerning the way of God in Christ reconciling the world
to himself. Now as darkness gives fear, so light gives liberty.
(11.3.4.) We obtain this liberty by the
opening of the way into the holiest, and by this we have access to the throne
of grace with boldness This the apostle particularly insists on in several
places of his following discourses, such as Hebrews
9:8, 10:19-22: where it must be spoken
to, [DMH39],
at large; for a great part of the liberty of the new testament consists in
this.
(11.3.5.) By all the ordinances of gospel
worship. It has been declared how the ordinances of worship under the old
testament lead the people into bondage;
but those of the new testament, through the plainness of signigication,
their immediate respect to the Lord Christ, with their use and effictiveness to
guide believers in their communion with God, all work together to our
evangelical liberty. Of such importance is our liberty in this instance, that
when the apostles saw it necessary, to avoid offence and scandal, to continue
the observance of one or two legal institutions, in abstinence from some things
in themselves indifferent, they did it only for a season, and declared that it
was only in case of scandal that they would allow this temporary abridgment of
the liberty given us by the gospel.
They differ greatly with respect to the dispensation and
grant of the Holy Spirit. It is certain that God did grant the gift of the Holy
Spirit under the old testament, but it is no less certain, that
there was always a promise of his greater outpouring and activity on the
confirmation and establishment of the new covenant. See in particular that
great promise to this purpose, Joel 2:28,
29, as applied and expounded by the apostle Peter, Acts
2:16-18.
2:16 But this is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith
God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old
men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will
pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Indeed so sparing was the communication of the Holy
Spirit under the old testament, compared with his effusion under the new, as
that the John affirms that “the Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus was
not yet glorified,” John 7:39; that is, he was not
yet given in that manner he was to be given on the confirmation of the new
covenant. And those of the church of the Hebrews who had received the doctrine
of John, yet affirmed that “they had not so much as heard whether there were
any Holy Spirit” or no, Acts 19:2;
that is, any such gift and communication of him as was then proposed as the
chief privilege of the gospel.
Neither does this concern only the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit in those miraculous gifts and operations with which the doctrine
and establishment of the new covenant was testified and confirmed. It also gave a signal (key)
difference between the two covenants; for the first covenant was confirmed by
dreadful appearances and operations,
performed by the ministry of angels, but the new covenant by the immediate
operation of the Holy Spirit himself.
But this difference principally consists in this, that
under the new testament the Holy Spirit has graciously condescended to bear the
office of the comforter of the church. That this unspeakable privilege is
peculiar to the new testament, is evident from all the promises of his being
sent as a comforter made by our Saviour, John
14-16.; especially as he assures his disciples that “unless he went away” (in
which he confirmed the new covenant) “the Comforter would not come;
but if he so went away, he would send him from the Father,” John 16:7. And
the difference between the two covenants
following from this is inexpressible.
They differ in the declaration made in them of the
kingdom of God. Iaugustine observed that the very name “the kingdom of heaven” is peculiar to the
new testament. It is true that God reigned in and over the church under the old
testament; but his rule was such, and had such a relation to secular things,
especially to the land of Canaan, and the flourishing condition of the people
in it, as to have an appearance of a kingdom of this world. And that this was
intentionally so, consisting in empire, power, victory, wealth, and peace, was
so deeply fixed on the minds of the people, that even the disciples of Christ
could not free themselves of that apprehension, until the new testament was
fully established. But now in the gospel, the nature of the kingdom of God,
where it is, and what it consists of, is plainly and evidently declared.This is
to the great consolation of believers. For while it is now known and
experienced as internal, spiritual, and heavenly, believers have no less
assured interest in it and advantage by it, in all the troubles which they
undergo in this world, than they could have in the fullest possession of all
earthly enjoyments.
They differ in their substance and end. The old covenant
was typical, shadowy, and removable, Hebrews
10:1.
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very
image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by
year continually make the comers thereto perfect.
The new covenant is substantial and permanent, as
containing the body, which is Christ. Now, compare the old covenant with the
new, and these qualities, that it was typical and shadowy, are great
limitations of it. But consider it absolutely, and the types and shadows were
its greatest glory; for in these things alone was it a token and pledge of the
love and grace of God. For those things in the old covenant which were most
binding and had the most of bondage in their use and practice, had the most
light and grace in their signification. This was the design of God in all the
ordinances of worship belonging to that covenant, namely, to typify, shadow,
and represent the heaven]y, substantial things of the new covenant, or the Lord
Christ and the work of his mediation. This the tabernacle, ark, altar, priests,
and sacrifices all did; and this was their glory that did so. However, compared
with the substance in the new covenant, they have no glory to speak of.
They differ in the extent of their administration,
according to the will of God. The first was confined to the posterity of
Abraham according to the flesh, and to those especially in the land of Canaan, Deuteronomy 5:3, with some few
proselytes that joined them, excluding all others from participation in the
benefits of it. And hence it was, that whereas the personal ministry of our
Saviour himself, in preaching the
gospel, preceded the introduction of the new covenant, it was confined to the
people of Israel, Matthew 15:24 And he was the “minister of the circumcision,” Romans 15:8.
Such narrow bounds and limits had the administration of
this covenant fixed to it by the will and pleasure of God, Psalm 147:19, 20. But the
administration of the new covenant is extended to all nations under heaven; none
being excluded, on the account of tongue, language, family, nation, or place of
habitation. All have an equal interest in the rising Sun. The partition wall is
broken down, and the gates of the new Jerusalem are set open to all comers upon
the gospel invitation. This is frequently taken notice of in the Scripture. See
Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; John 11:51, 52, 12:32; Acts
11:18, 17:30; Galatians
5:6; Ephesians 2:11-16, 3:8-10; Colossians; 3:10, 11; 1 John 2:2; Revelation 5:9. This is the
grand charter of the poor wandering Gentiles. Having wilfully abandoned God, he
was pleased, in his holiness and severity, to leave all our ancestors for many
generations to serve and worship the devil. And the mystery of our recovery was
“hid in God from the beginning of the world,” Ephesians
3:8-10. And although it was so foretold, so prophesied, so promised under the
old testament, yet, such was the pride, blindness, and obstinacy, of the
greatest part of the church of the Jews, that its accomplishment was one great
part of that stumbling-block at which they fell; indeed, the greatness and
glory of this mystery was such, that Christ’s disciples themselves comprehended
it not, until it was testified to them by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit,
the great promise of the new covenant, upon some of those poor Gentiles, Acts
11:18.
They differ in their efficacy; for the old covenant
“made nothing perfect,” it could effect none of the things it represented, nor
introduce that perfect or complete state which God had designed for the church.
But this we have at large insisted on
in our exposition of the foregoing chapter.[DMH40]
Lastly, They differ in their duration: for the one was
to be removed, and the other to stand for ever; which must be declared on the following [DMH41]verses.
It may be that other things of a like nature may be
added to these mentioned, on which the difference between the two covenants
consists; but these instances are sufficient to show that they are distinct.
For some, when they hear that the covenant of grace was always one and the
same, of the same nature and efficacy under both testaments, —that the way of
salvation by Christ was always one and the same, —are ready to think that there
was no such great difference between their state and ours as is claimed.
But we see that on that supposition, the covenant which
God brought the people into at Sinai,
the yoke they were to abide under until the new covenant was
established, had all the disadvantages just described. And those who do not
understand how great and glorious the privileges are that are added to the
covenant of grace, in the administration of it, by the introduction and
establishment of the new covenant, are utterly blind to and unacquainted with
the nature of spiritual and heavenly things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There remains yet one thing more, which the Socinians
give us occasion to speak to from these words of the apostle, that the new
covenant is “established on better promises.” For from this they conclude that
there were no promises of life under the old testament; which, is a senseless opinion. And, —
1. The apostle in this place
intends only those promises on which the new testament was legally ratified,
and reduced to the form of a covenant; which were, as he declares, the promises
of special pardoning mercy, and of the efficacy of grace in the renovation of
our natures, But it is granted that the old covenant was legally established on
promises which respected the land of Canaan. Wherefore it is granted, that as
to the promises whereby the covenants were actually established, those of the
new covenant were better than the other.
2. The old covenant had express
promise of eternal life: “He that doeth these things shall live in them.” It
was, indeed, with respect to perfect obedience that it gave that promise;
however it did have that promise, which is all
we are inquiring after here.
3. The institutions of worship
which belonged to that covenant, -the whole ministry of the tabernacle, as
representing heavenly things,- had the nature of a promise in them; for they
all directed the church to seek for life and salvation in and by Jesus Christ
alone.
4. The question is not, “What
promises are given in the law itself, or the old covenant formally considered
as such?”, but, “What promises did they possess who lived under that covenant,
and that it did not disannul?” for we have sufficiently proved, that the
addition of this covenant did not abolish or supersede the efficacy of any
promise that God had before given the church. And to say that the first
promise, and that given to Abraham, confirmed with the oath of God, were not
promises of eternal life, is to overthrow the whole Bible, both Old Testament
and New. And we may observe from the foregoing discourses, —
Obs. X. Although one state of the church has had great advantages and
privileges above another, yet no state has had any cause to complain, while
they observed the terms prescribed to them. The Old Covenant was in itself unspeakable
grace.
—We have seen in how many things, of the highest
importance, the state of the church under the new covenant excels the state of
the church under the old; yet the old was in itself a state of unspeakable
grace and privilege. For, —
1It was a state of near relation to God, by virtue of a
covenant. And when all mankind had absolutely broken covenant with God by sin,
to call any of them into a covenant relation with himself, was an act of
sovereign grace and mercy. In this they were distinguished from the residue of
mankind, whom God suffered to walk in their own ways, and winked at their
ignorance, while they all perished in the pursuit of their foolish
imaginations. A great part of the Book of Deuteronomy is designed to impress a
sense of this upon the minds of the people. And it is summarily expressed by
the psalmist, Psalm 147:19, 20;
19 He sheweth his word unto
Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his
judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.
and by the prophet, Isaiah 63:19.
“We are thine: thou never barest rule over
them: thy name was not called upon by them,”
2. The Sinaitic covenant of God was
in itself holy, just, and equal. For although there were imposed in it several
burdensome things, they were such things as God in his infinite wisdom saw
necessary for that people, and such as they could not have been without. Hence
on all occasions God refers it even to themselves to judge whether his ways
towards them were not fair, and their own unfair. And it was not only a just
covenant, but attended with promises of unspeakable advantages above all other
people.
3. God in dealing with them in the
way of a covenant, to which the mutual consent of both parties covenanting is
required, proposed the covenant to them
for their acceptance, and they did willingly accept it, Exodus 24, Deuteronomy
5; so that they had nothing to complain of in its terms.
4. In that state of discipline in
which God was pleased to hold them, they enjoyed the way of life and salvation
in the promise; for, as we have shown,
the promise was not disannulled by the introduction of this covenant.
Therefore, although God reserved a better and more complete state for the
church under the new testament, having “ordained better things for us, that
they without us should not be made perfect;” yet that other state was in itself good and holy,
and sufficient to bring all believers to the enjoyment of God.
$$
Obs. XI. Two things follow from the state of the gospel, or of the church
under the new testament, being accompanied with the highest spiritual
privileges and advantages possible in this world:
—
1. The great obligation on all
believers to holiness and fruitfulness in obedience, for the glory of God. We
have in this new covenant the utmost condescension of divine grace, and the
greatest effects of it that God will communicate on this side of glory.
That which all these things tend to, that which God requires and expects for
them, is the thankful and fruitful obedience of those that are made partakers
of them. And they who do not feel this obligation are strangers to the things
themselves, and are not able to discern spiritual things, because they are to
be spiritually discerned.
2. The heinousness of the sin of
those who neglect or despise this covenant is hence abundantly manifest. This
the apostle particularly asserts and insists upon, Hebrews 2:2, 3, 10:28, 29.
Heb 2:2-3 For if the
word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience
received a just recompence of reward; 3 How shall we escape, if
we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the
Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 10:29,30 Of how much sorer
punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know
him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the
Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
[DMH1]Some significant repetition in the
next few paras
[DMH2]Better word for wherefore?
[DMH3]Add a reference, probably later in
Hebrews.
[DMH4]Significance, meaning, connotation
[DMH6]Might need to expand this idea for
clarity and in simpler language
[DMH7]Look up in Oxford dict
[DMH8]the new covenant as promise
[DMH9]change effective or alteration
effective or just “change”
[DMH10]origin ?
[DMH11]Gone before? Need a translation try Oxford Dict.
[DMH12]Origin?
[DMH13]Note on Pelagianism or delete the
reference
[DMH14]Where does JO refute this?
[DMH15]Recast this phrase after looking up
obnoxious
[DMH16]propositions? Or Observations?
[DMH18]Could delete the first clause
[DMH19]in or to
[DMH20]This is a summary of the preceding
section 3, “Purposes of the Old Covenant”
[DMH21]Who is JO quoting here, not
scripture unless his own translation?
[DMH22]Where does he say this?
[DMH23]We’ll see
[DMH24]footnote to this effect.
[DMH25]Need synonym
[DMH26]representATION OR RE-PRESENTATION.
Thereof being the seed, the church, the Seed, or the purpose?
[DMH27]Clumsy phrasing
[DMH28]translate!
[DMH29]Any value in the comments against
RC? Any application of the words to liberal protestants. I think so.
[DMH30]Comment on Hebrews 6:9
[DMH31]Add comment from JO’s Exercitations.
Follow the reference he gives
[DMH32]in the exosition of te ensuing
verses. Need to read ahead in Owen a bit.
[DMH33]Another refreence to pursue.
[DMH34]And another reference to pursue. Or
tighten the scope and summarise in my own words.
[DMH35]And again, follow the reference to
the next chapter.
[DMH36]Better Title?
[DMH37]Change this title. Along with the
next subtitle it is only a placemarker until the structure is sorted out,
[DMH38]. Needs better wording.
[DMH39]Follow reference in JO
[DMH40] JO on Hebrews 7
[DMH41]of Hebrews 8