Participants: Brandon Adams (1689federalism.com); Sam Renihan, author of The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom; Richard Barcellos, author of More Than a Memory: The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace. This discussion responds primarily to Reformed Forum Christ the Center Episode 736.
Introduction and Participants
Brandon: Welcome everybody. This isn't a regular podcast series that we do, but three of us thought we'd get together and talk a little covenant theology.
I am Brandon Adams. I am a sinner saved by grace and I've got a blog that writes about covenant theology quite a bit, and I helped maintain the 1689federalism.com website. Hopefully we will be doing some more with that in the future — it's been a little dormant, but Lord willing we'll be able to do some more with that.
I'm joined here with Sam Renihan and Richard Barcellos. They are also sinners saved by the blood of Christ. They are also pastors and scholars. Sam has written his dissertation on the historical covenant theology of 17th-century Particular Baptists. He's also written a positive exposition from Scripture of Baptist covenant theology, and a ton of other stuff. Rich did his dissertation on comparing John Owen and Geerhardus Vos's biblical theology, which is relevant for this discussion. He has written a book called More Than a Memory: The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace — and he also lectures on hermeneutics at various seminaries. Welcome, Sam and Rich.
Sam / Rich: Thanks, Brandon. Good to be here.
Background: What Prompted This Discussion
Brandon: The primary purpose here — what instigated this conversation — was a variety of episodes of Christ the Center on Reformed Forum that they've done over a few years. They did a couple with Jeremy Boothby, who was working on a master's thesis on the book of Hebrews as it relates to typology and covenant theology with a particular focus on 1689 Federalism. And then more recently — probably four months ago or so — they did another episode with Carlton Wynne and professors at RTS — and their focus in that episode was on Jeremiah 31 as it relates to typology, subservient covenant theology, and John Owen. That was Christ the Center Episode 736. So that'll be our primary focus today.
Before we dive into our outline, Sam and Rich, do you have any general comments or thoughts about those episodes?
Sam: I listened to them and I appreciated the charitable tone. That gets talked about from time to time — tone is important; it's not everything, but it's important. I appreciated their clear desire to understand the views that they were interacting with, as well as to represent them fairly. Obviously our response is trying to further that understanding and further that interaction. But it seemed like it was a very positive invitation to interaction, and I appreciated the way they went about it. I hope that we can in many ways emulate or reciprocate the way in which they conducted themselves in the podcast and the way that they discussed it.
Brandon: Would you say they were winsome?
Sam: I would. They were clear on things that they criticized, but they were also asking questions — "Please explain this to me, it doesn't make sense." So I appreciated that.
Brandon: I did too. Those guys are good guys, and it sounds like they've read some material, and they have questions. That's one reason why we're here today.
We will do our best to answer those questions in interacting with them. This is a very nuanced and intricate topic. Hopefully this podcast will help, but I do think what would be most helpful moving forward would be to actually get us all together to discuss these issues — to be able to talk back and forth and answer questions and clarify. Maybe down the road that would be possible.
Part One: Defining the Old Covenant
Our Basic Position
Brandon: To get us started, I thought we could start by explaining our understanding of the old covenant. Much of those episodes focused on the salvation of Old Testament saints as it relates to typology, so we're going to table that for just a moment and try to establish what we understand the old covenant to be in and of itself.
We would essentially say that the old covenant was a typological covenant of works for temporal life and blessing in the typological holy land of Canaan, and it was conditioned upon the outward obedience to Mosaic Law. Does that sound accurate?
Sam: Right.
Was the Old Covenant a Covenant of Works in the Adamic Sense?
Brandon: On a subservient view — and I've heard our brother Lane Tipton say this a couple of times — if the function of the commands of the Mosaic covenant were to evoke Christless, graceless, bootstrapped obedience for an extended tenure in the land, then how in the world did the nation of Israel survive one millisecond in the land — or even get to the land — because a true covenant of works not even oriented to eternal life but just to any blessing whatsoever is automatically violated the moment it begins for any mere human who lives after the fall?
Would you agree with his description of our understanding of the role of works in relation to the old covenant? Do we believe that it was conditioned upon the same conditions as the Adamic covenant — the perfect, perpetual, personal, entire, and exact obedience to the law of God?
Rich: Can I say something? I'm going to set this up for Sam, because I know he's done a lot of study here. Maybe Sam could articulate for us — and this is directly connected to what Brandon just said — the nature of a typological covenant of works, the relationship it does and does not have with the Adamic covenant of works, what that might be called, and where it comes from among the Baptists toward the end of the 17th century. That'll help stir up my brain.
Sam: Dr. Barcellos is bringing up a good point. We understand that the old covenant — though the enjoyment of blessings is based on obedience — is nevertheless not the original covenant of works from Eden revived and copy-pasted into Canaan. It has different promises, it has different precepts, and it has different penalties, and indeed different parties. So it is republishing in the sense of in many ways imitating; it is republishing in the sense of making the curse of the original covenant of works known again in certain ways. But it is not the original Adamic covenant of works and it does not function like it.
It demands an obedience that can be rendered by even one who is not regenerate, and it also provides a means of reconciliation within itself.
When I say it commands an obedience that an unregenerate person can offer — for example, when God commands the Israelites to take the land and then to live in the land, the things he commands them to do are things that even an unregenerate person can offer. Because they're not regenerate they're not going to do it perfectly, but there was a sacrificial system in place to restore them to a ceremonial purity.
We have to notice that this begins not just with Moses — this begins with Abraham in Genesis 17. As for you, God says to Abraham, "You and your offspring after you, you must keep, you must guard my covenant." Then circumcision is instituted, and the one who rejects circumcision is cut off from the covenant and will not enjoy the blessings. So just as circumcision could be applied to all of the Israelites according to the flesh, there was an obedience that followed from that that they could offer to God.
Some of the accusations against them — that they did not believe and therefore they failed to enjoy some blessings — that's not talking about a saving faith. That's talking about trusting that what God has promised to do he will do. For example, Joshua and Caleb say: if God has promised this land to us, he will give it to us, so we should go and fight — because God has promised and covenanted this land to us by our father Abraham. When the Israelites left Egypt, it says that they believed God — it doesn't mean they had saving faith in Christ; it means they believed what God said about their deliverance from Egypt and trusted him.
So what we're beginning to develop here is an understanding of the role of phrases like "believe" or "obey" in the original historical context of the old covenant. If we look at the old covenant and say this is demanding Christless, graceless, bootstrapped obedience, it's a bad comparison to one-to-one analogize the Edenic covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant of works. They're distinct things with distinct contexts, distinct parties, promises, precepts, and penalties. So we have to look at the nature of obedience in the Mosaic covenant and realize that it was something that could be offered by unregenerate persons, and also that there was a means of reconciliation for them within that system.
Brandon: Would it fit within the category of the Mosaic covenant as a "subservient covenant" — subservient to something else?
Sam: Absolutely, and that's certainly where we're driving. The Mosaic covenant is not an end in itself but a means to an end. The subservient covenant not only portrays or republishes or points back to the Adamic covenant of works, but it also points forward and is preparatory unto Jesus Christ and the covenant of grace — the new covenant that he will inaugurate and bring to the world. So the law's telos, its end, is not just life in Canaan but rather to bring sinners to Jesus Christ and to bring history to Jesus Christ. And that, of course, begins with Abraham, not just with Moses.
Part Two: The Sacrificial System and What It Accomplished
Brandon: Now speak specifically about the function of the sacrificial system and what it actually accomplished.
Real quick before we jump into that — for context, what Carlton Wynne described initially was what the OPC report summarized as the subservient covenant view: that it was upon the same condition as the Adamic covenant of works in the garden. I don't think that's an accurate representation of the subservient covenant view. They cite Thomas Goodwin as evidence of that, but we'll include a link in the show notes to a section from Goodwin where he talks about the condition of the subservient covenant being outward obedience to the law — as we'll discuss. Camden's correction on this is appreciated based on follow-up we've had with him.
Rich: I've got at least two things to say to that. Number one: behind the entire Mosaic economy is the reality of creation and the original covenant of works, and at the core of that religious relation — compounded by the covenant condescension of God — is face-to-face fellowship from the heart. From the very beginning of creation, God only and always demands pure, perfect, heart-level obedience. The notion that God would demand only outward, unbelieving, Christless, bootstrap, formal obedience would contravene the very essence of God's relationship with rational creatures.
Are we denying that God demands perfect obedience from the heart from Israelites as image-bearers? No — "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind." But we are distinguishing the function of the obedience in the old covenant from that of the function of obedience for believers, and what was acceptable according to the old covenant. Their outward obedience is matched by an outward forgiveness in the sacrificial system. The temporal blessings uniquely offered by the old covenant are what are conditioned by that outward obedience. It's not that God has suddenly stopped his demand upon the Israelites as image-bearers — he's not pausing that and saying "you only need to obey outwardly to the letter." Instead he is giving them some unique blessings not offered to other people in the world. He's established a unique relationship with them, giving them these outward blessings in the outward holy land, and conditioning those unique blessings upon outward obedience to the law.
Sam: Let's not be abstract — let's be concrete. This is what we mean: what God demands of the Israelites is ceremonial purity. He says you will worship me, you will worship only me, you will worship me in the way that I have established and ordained and instituted, in the places that I have established and ordained and instituted. God demands their loyalty, their worship, that they love him and serve him and obey him — and that is part of the old covenant. If we ever say there's some outward arrangement of obedience that really just doesn't matter and is not of the heart — that's not what we're talking about.
God is demanding that they be his people according to the flesh — Abraham and his offspring, all of them marked by circumcision. They are his people, they are given Canaan, they are to live there and worship God. The law of Moses not only organizes but strictly determines the way in which they are to worship God and the way in which they are to be holy. If you do this you are holy; if you do not do this you are unholy. The "holy versus unholy" laws of Moses — that's what we're talking about: an outward obedience and an outward ceremonial holiness. If you touch this thing you are unholy; if you eat this thing you are unholy according to the flesh. And the sacrifices restore that outward, ceremonial holiness.
So if we think about the Davidic kings — as well as the Samarian kings, the northern kingdom kings — and if we think about the exile and the curses called down upon them from Deuteronomy and applied to them: what determines the goodness or badness of a king, and what determines tenure in the land? Whether or not they are maintaining outward ceremonial purity — whether or not they are maintaining the holiness that the old covenant demands of them. Because they are not worshiping God correctly, because they are offering polluted sacrifices, because they are perverting justice — all of these are the reasons why God pours out the curses upon them.
So when we say "outward obedience," we're talking about: maintain justice in the land, maintain purity in the ceremonial system, the worship that God has instituted for you and for this people. That's a much better path forward than just saying "God demands outward obedience" — that phraseology is liable to a great deal of criticism. But if we get specific about what God commands in the old covenant, it's to some degree a matter of just reading it off the page: God demands this holiness, God demands this justice in the land, and when you pervert that justice and that holiness, God will discipline you and curse you and cast you out of the land. Which, of course, he did.
Rich: Just a quick comment: in the OPC report on republication, they make a great deal of emphasis upon the idea that no work could ever be acceptable before God unless it was done in union with Christ and Spirit-wrought obedience. So they would say exactly what you described is impossible for a sinner. To that we would say: first, we have the Noahic covenant stabilizing all of creation upon a common grace platform — God is giving common grace benefits to all these creatures that don't deserve it. He's allowing them to live and eat and breathe. And upon that platform he's established this unique relationship with Israel where he's giving them very heightened common grace blessings: abundant food, wonderful land, victory in wars.
We're not saying they were pleasing to God in and of themselves. We're saying they simply met the condition for reward that he offered — what Camden mentioned as ex pacto merit. It allows you to stay in the land because God has arranged it covenantally. He has given you the land freely as a child of Abraham, but he demands your justice and ceremonial purity to remain in the land — and so long as you maintain that, you retain that blessing.
The Exile: What Was Israel's Great Sin?
Brandon: That kind of obedience is precisely what the prophets chastise the nation for, and it is the grounds for which they eventually get sent into exile. The problem with Old Testament Israel was that they were carrying on a resemblance of obedience — sacrificing to God while their hearts were far from him. To enshrine that as the very design of the old covenant, I think, misses the greatest sin of Israel.
On Carlton Wynne's view, the reason they were sent into exile is because they failed to have saving faith in Christ. He articulates it as: they did obey outwardly according to the letter of the law but they didn't have saving faith in Christ, therefore they were exiled. Would you agree with that understanding of the biblical data regarding the exile?
Sam: I would not agree. I would agree that to say a just going-through-the-motions of the Mosaic covenant is sufficient is indeed criticized by the prophets — God will not accept their sacrifices because they do not love him, because they pervert justice in the land and such things. But if what he is saying is that saving faith is what is criticized and is the cause of their exile, then surely I would disagree with that.
Brandon: They mentioned Jeremiah 7 a little bit later, saying they were exiled exactly for this reason — they disobeyed, they brought their sacrifices, and that wasn't good enough. But if you look at the context there, Jeremiah 7 specifically says that the temple was polluted, that they had set up idols inside the temple. This is not the sacrificial system being the problem — the problem is the way they're polluting and perverting it. They're bringing the lame animals, they're bringing things not according to God's design. God always said, "I desire obedience, not sacrifice" — to obey is better than sacrifice — and the people were thinking, "Why obey? We can just sacrifice." And then they were offering polluted sacrifices.
Sam: Jeremiah 7 says: "The sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the Lord; they have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name to defile it." So it's not even that they were offering sacrifice according to the law — they were not obeying to the letter of the law. They were disobeying. The atonement could not atone because they were not offering it according to the law, which is a violation of the second commandment — that's idolatry.
Brandon: It's a good point — think about Josiah. When the Israelites purify their worship, those are the kings that are marked as good. Who are the kings that get the commendation "this person did what was right in the eyes of the Lord according to all the deeds of his father David"? It's the ones who purify the worship — the ones who remove the idols from the temple, who remove the Asherah poles and the high places and the priests of Baal. The ones who remove the idolatry from the land and lead the people in pure, right worship — those ones are not exiled. Those ones are not cursed. Josiah: "I will not exile the people during your time because you have loved me and you have purified the worship of the land."
So it's a way to test our understanding of the old covenant: see what God rewarded. It was the kings and the people under the leadership of kings who purified the temple and the worship of the land — those ones received God's blessing and his protection in the covenant.
Brandon: I want to throw in quickly: the question is — well, even when they did break it, why did they get to stay in the land for so long? I would just refer back to the covenant of circumcision. God promised — he made several promises to Abraham — and until those promises were fulfilled, God was longsuffering towards Israel. It was a grace that undergirded and withheld the old covenant curses until those promises were fulfilled.
Once Israel fully inhabits the land — it says Israel was as numerous as the stars of heaven at the dedication of the temple, Solomon mentions these things — and immediately after that, the kingdom is split in two and ten tribes are cast off and cursed and never heard from again. Then Judah doesn't experience the full brunt of old covenant curses until after the final Abrahamic promise — the birth of Christ — is fulfilled. So when Moses intercedes for Israel and appeals to the promise God made to Abraham, that is what withheld the old covenant curses from being poured out.
Part Three: Two-Tier Typology
Introducing the Concept
Brandon: As we get into typology and its function — specifically the sacrificial system's function in and of itself — I want to raise a concern from the Reformed Forum episode: if we're saying the entire point of the Mosaic economy is not simply to save Old Testament saints, we must assign some function for it aside from that. There must be some function it serves in and of itself. He would see that as a problem. We would say — no, that's recognizing the old covenant in and of itself. The sacrifices serve a function. In that sense, we wouldn't say they were bare forms — they served a function in their own regard.
Sam, you've talked about in other lectures the idea of "two-tier typology" — the idea that types function on two different levels: one with reference to Christ, and another in and of themselves on their own level. Could we focus on that first tier — what was the function of these things in and of themselves?
Sam: When we're dealing with two-tier typology, types have their own initial, original, historical level of significance. They have their own reality in and of themselves, and they serve their own function and purpose in their own day. In order to appreciate typology you have to start there and appreciate the type in its original context — because the symbolism there is what makes it a type of an antitype that is second-level, greater, and other than itself.
The sacrificial system is the easiest example because it's the most developed and studied by the Scriptures themselves, especially in the book of Hebrews. We are told that the sacrifices purify the flesh — that these offerings are used for the purification of the flesh. When we go back to Leviticus or Exodus and any time the sacrificial system is instituted or discussed in the law of Moses, the sacrifices — whether the regular, the daily, or the Day of Atonement sacrifice — use again and again expressions like "and their sins shall be forgiven" or "atonement shall be made." The writer to the Hebrews says this is purification of the flesh.
These sacrifices do not reach to the conscience — they do not purify the conscience, they do not perfect the conscience. In fact, there is a reminder of sins built into them. This means we have to realize that animal blood does forgive sins — animal blood does purify the flesh — but what it means is: "I have touched an unclean thing, I have disobeyed the law of Moses, I am now unclean relative to the law of Moses — I am now unclean according to the flesh." And animal blood will forgive those sins against the Mosaic law and make atonement according to the Mosaic law.
So the writer to the Hebrews says animal blood does not forgive sins — what the writer means is: in the way that Christ's blood has. This is where we get the two-tier typology. The first level — the first tier — is the type in its original historical context. The sacrifices take away sins, animal blood takes away sins, according to the flesh — it purifies the flesh. But it cannot reach to the heart; it cannot give what we might call heavenly forgiveness — forgiveness in the court of heaven — whereas only Christ's blood can do that. That's the second tier: the antitypical level, the final, true, ultimate reality that the sacrifices are a picture of.
So if you call the sacrifices a bare form, we would say: the sacrifices have their own function and their own purpose and their own significance in their own context — namely to purify the flesh, which is what the Scriptures say they do. Which is what Leviticus and Exodus say that they do. And indeed they did do.
Examples of Two-Tier Typology
Sam: We can take that understanding and apply it to the rest of the types of the Old Testament.
The Passover Lamb: We would all say this is a picture, a type of Jesus Christ. And yet the blood of the Passover lamb put on the doorposts of their dwellings in Egypt — what did that blood accomplish? It accomplished the passing over of the destroying angel that came through Egypt and struck down the firstborn of man and beast. So we would say that blood had a real function and it affected something in its own time — and through what it did in its own context, that symbolism points us above and beyond to Jesus Christ, our Passover Lamb.
Was the efficacy of the blood of that Passover lamb contingent upon saving faith in Christ? No — certainly not. Everyone who was within a household marked with blood on the doorposts received that benefit. They had to believe what God warned would happen — that there was going to be this curse being poured out on the firstborn in order to sacrifice a lamb and put it above their doorposts — but they did not have to have saving faith in Christ, as we learn that the entire first generation did not have that. But it was effective in and of itself.
Just by way of contrast: in some other lectures and interviews, Lane Tipton has said that in the Passover — Israel was redeemed by the blood of Christ, was united to the Redeemer, and was redeemed out of Egypt by the blood of Christ. And we would say: no, they were redeemed by the blood of this Passover lamb — not the blood of Christ — which was a picture, a type of the blood of Jesus Christ.
The Red Sea Crossing: Deliverance from Egypt. It's also a picture of something greater.
The Manna: Jesus makes manna a relation of typology — the manna in the wilderness gives them life for another day, on their way to Canaan, on their way to the promised land. Jesus says of himself, "I am the true manna." So he's saying: I am what the manna was a picture of. The manna had its own function — and it points forward.
The Bronze Serpent: Those who looked to it, and pleaded with God for mercy, were delivered from the affliction of the fiery serpents — the terrible wounds they caused. So looking to that serpent healed their bodies. But it was a picture — the Son of Man must also be lifted up.
The Sacrificial System: All of these things purify the flesh, restore ceremonial outward holiness for all those who participate rightly according to God's laws in the sacrificial system. But that animal blood can never perfect the conscience. It can never bring you into the heavenly holy of holies — animal blood can only bring you into the earthly tabernacle made with hands. Only the blood of Jesus Christ perfects the conscience. Only the blood of Jesus Christ brings you into that heavenly tabernacle not made with hands.
The Core Assertion
Sam: What we are asserting here — and what I believe is in many ways the resolution to what our Reformed Forum brothers are discussing — is to give a clear expression to two-tier typology: that the old covenant types had their own initial, first-level significance, reality, and function. And in my opinion, our brothers often skip over that first tier and fail to acknowledge and appreciate it sufficiently. So to them it looks like we're making these just bare forms — something that is apparently a picture of Christ but is empty. We have to realize they're not bare forms. They do symbolize and they do grant blessings in their day and in their time that are distinct from the blessings that Jesus Christ brings in himself.
Typology is two-tier: this first level — the shadow — and the second, final, antitypical level — the substance.
Rich: One of the things they're getting at is, I think, an important issue: do these typological institutions like the sacrificial system function one way — horizontally and non-redemptively — while on the other hand there is a distinct function for elect believers? Was something happening ordo salutis-type stuff for some people who believed the promise? Were they receiving grace from God through participation in the sacrificial system?
I think that's precisely where we're driving. But here's a question: is that true of every single type in the Old Testament — that it both points forward and is also a symbol of a real, present, redemptive reality being experienced by the souls of elect believers? We need to be very careful. The first type most people would agree on is Adam — Adam was the type of him who was to come. But was Adam also receiving the grace of Christ as a type? And then Eve comes on the scene — if we take our hermeneutical cue from the Apostle Paul, Eve is a type of the church. But was Eve as a type of the church also symbolic of the reception of ordo salutis-type benefits? That's before the fall — I don't want to go that way. So we need to make careful distinctions and not put all types in the same exact category of both prospective and potentially symbolic of the experience of the benefits of the Mediator.
Part Four: Salvation of New Testament Saints
Brandon: As we get into the question of salvation of Old Testament saints, let's start by explaining the salvation of New Testament saints — there may be slight differences in the way we express this from our brothers at Reformed Forum.
We would say that New Testament saints are saved by and through the new covenant. We would say they are saved through union with Christ, and we would say that union with Christ is the new covenant — the new covenant is our marriage union with our Redeemer, our marriage union with Christ. Would you agree with that?
Sam: Certainly — the new covenant is how we enter into and participate in the blessings that Jesus Christ has won for us as our head. To be united to him and to derive from him all the grace he has won for us in covenant is indeed the new covenant.
Brandon: They might potentially define that differently. When I hear Carlton and other guys at Reformed Forum talk, I don't hear them talk about the new covenant in terms of union with Christ — I hear them talk about the new covenant in terms of the ordinances and things like that. Meredith Kline seems to push the inward covenant of grace to the covenant of redemption and make the covenant of grace the outward covenant of grace, kind of bifurcating that. That may contribute a little bit to a lack of understanding between our views.
We would say that New Testament saints are saved through new covenant union with Christ, and that that covenant is made with us in the effectual call. The effectual call, we could say, is God making the new covenant with us. And from that we receive the Spirit — we're regenerated, we receive faith, forgiveness of sin, sanctification, glorification.
Both the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession — 10.1 and 14.1 — talk about salvation coming ordinarily through the ministry of the Word by the Spirit in the effectual call. Our faith is strengthened by ordinances, but the salvation is established in the effectual call through the new covenant, which dispenses the ordo salutis benefits of Christ.
Rich: We're not denying an internal and external distinction of the covenant, because the outward administration is indeed broader than the internal reception of the benefits — that's essentially visible/invisible church language. Not everyone who receives baptism and not everyone who receives the Lord's Supper is saved. But we would say they are falsely simulating outwardly an inward reality that they don't have. We're not denying an internal/external distinction.
Brandon: Right. We are denying that somebody could be a party to the new covenant outwardly. Only those who are united to Christ are members of the new covenant. Those who are not are falsely considered so — but they are nevertheless accountable for their actions. In terms of the legal relationship, they are not united to Christ — they don't have a legal, covenantal union with Christ.
Part Five: Salvation of Old Testament Saints
The Same Means
Brandon: If we take that understanding — that's how New Testament saints are saved — and then we go back and look at Old Testament saints, we would say the same thing: Old Testament saints were saved through new covenant union with Christ. Correct?
Sam: Yes — and the author of Hebrews makes that clear in that he establishes Christ as the mediator of the new covenant. There is no other way to be saved but through his mediation of the new covenant. And we can note that this is not a distinctive of our view. It's been held across various denominations and schools throughout history: Augustine, Aquinas, the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (quoting Aquinas), Lutherans, Baptists, subservient covenant guys, and various Westminster guys — Horton, Frame, many others. And most, when I explain it this way, say, "Oh yeah, that makes sense — we agree." The disagreement then is whether or not the old and new are the same covenant.
What we would call the retroactivity of the new covenant — the fact that Old Testament saints are saved by the new covenant, by the work of Christ to come — they participate in that in advance of Christ coming to do that work, because Christ's promise to do it is sure and certain and guaranteed. And like New Testament saints, that relationship — union with Christ — is also established in the effectual call by the Word.
Brandon: The Second London Baptist Confession added a chapter — Chapter 20 — that was not present in the Westminster Confession. It was first added by the Savoy Divines and then continued into our Confession. Paragraph one says:
"The covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and beginning in them faith and repentance. In this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and is therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners."
It cites Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 13:8. That explains primarily how we understand the salvation of Old Testament saints — through the Word, as a promise of the gospel made effectual to their salvation.
Sam: Yes — and the promise of Christ to come predates Abraham and predates the writing of the Old Testament. It's a promise made effectual by the Spirit in the souls of some, creating true believers in the Christ to come before Abraham and before the Old Testament was written. We can learn that in part from Hebrews 11: there are some people who predate Abraham who seem to be — using New Testament language — in Christ. I don't see how there's any other way to be saved except to be somehow united to Christ and a recipient of his benefits.
Rich: John Owen has a quote I've used many times — paraphrasing — he says it is agreed on all sides that the promise of Christ was the source of salvation in all history. He says the Socinians only excepted — everyone agrees, except for the Socinians, that the promise of Christ was present in the Old Testament and was the source of salvation in all history until Christ came.
And from the Confession on saving faith: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word." This is a churchly confession concentrating on the mechanisms or means of grace for the then-people of God. But if we think about this before inscripturation — there are believers in the Christ to come. How did they come to Christ? They got a word — the promise of Genesis 3:15 — which must have been passed down among pre-inscripturated people. I think Adam and Eve were the first to believe it and then passed it on to others.
I don't think we should view the Mosaic animal sacrificial system as — we could say they were "visible words," but when we use that language it's usually baptism and the Lord's Supper, which are not saving ordinances. They don't effect faith; they can enhance and strengthen faith. So I think we need to distinguish between the promise — the communication of information — and the means of grace.
Sam: I agree, and that's very important. One of my frustrations over the years in reading books, especially biblical theology books by non-Baptists, is that it's almost like the history of redemption starts in Genesis 12, 15, 17, or 22, depending on whom you're reading. The historia salutis, the history of redemption, actually starts at the first revelation of the promise of the skull-crushing Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3:15.
Rich: I would actually go behind the promise in one sense — this is perhaps unusual, but I think the history of redemption was at least being set up in some prelapsarian institutions, like marriage. Adam is a type of Christ, and maybe even plants coming out of the ground on the third day. When you read John 12, Jesus connects his resurrection with a seed coming up out of the ground, and Paul does the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15.
Brandon: That promise doesn't stay in that form throughout the entirety of the Old Testament — it develops, but it's all organically related and it's all progressive revelation pointing to some sort of consummation. When Paul uses the language, "In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, born of a woman," a biblically saturated mind would immediately go back to Genesis 3:15 and say: ah, here it is.
Sam: I remember reading — possibly Luther — about Eve in Genesis 4:1: "I have gotten a man, the LORD." It could be translated that way. The poor woman thought she gave birth to the Messiah — she missed the timing, but she got the substance of the promise right. And the name of Noah refers to the one who will bring rest — so down through these generations they are looking for the fulfillment of that promise.
Brandon: How would we say that types relate to the promise? The promise is propositional revelation of what is to come — how do types relate to that?
Sam: Paul looks back at the Old Testament and speaks about the mystery of Christ — the revelation of all that Christ would do was present in the Old Testament, but it was present in the mode of mystery. It's revealed, but partially, obscurely, in dark ways. Typology reveals Christ not directly but indirectly. For example, animal sacrifices — it's not "this animal is Christ" — the writer to the Hebrews says no, it can't do what Christ's blood does. But it does tell you: God accepts sacrificial victims to make atonement. God will accept the blood of another — a pure and perfect offering — to make atonement. So it is teaching you something. It is effecting purification of the flesh in and of itself, but it's also teaching you something other and greater: that God will accept blood for the remission of sins. As there is a reminder of sins in the sacrificial system, it pushes the Old Testament saint to look above and beyond the animal sacrificial system to something other and greater.
So the type in itself accomplishes something, but it also points you to Christ who accomplishes something — and therefore is a means of connection. Through mystery — not a direct or obvious portrayal of Jesus Christ, but a true portrayal nonetheless.
I would recommend Benjamin Gladd and Greg Beale's book on mystery. Of course, I wrote The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, which you could look at. But that's how I understand Paul's use of mystery and how typology reveals Christ — it does reveal him, but secondarily and indirectly.
Rich: The New Testament helps us with what you were just talking about. In 1 Peter 1:10 — "As to this salvation... the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."
When the Lord comes along — the fulfillment of what the Christological types pointed to — and the divine commentary on the coming of Christ arrives through the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation — how the types function becomes clearer to us. But it doesn't mean it wasn't getting through to at least some people. The mystery is now here; the fog is removed.
This raises a question: did Old Testament saints need to have explicit conscious knowledge of these types to be saved? Today we have true believers that believe the Trinity but aren't necessarily able to articulate it clearly. Does that mean they're not saved because they can't explain the full New Testament teaching on the Trinity? That's kind of how I go back to the Old Testament era when people ask, "Well, did they understand it as a type?" I'm not sure it's necessary to say all the elect understood all the typology of the Old Testament.
Sam: We should not overstate the knowledge of Old Testament believers, but we do have biblical data. We're told that Abraham knew there was a heavenly country, he knew there was an inheritance greater than Canaan. The prophets knew there was one to come — from Genesis 3:15 onward they know God has promised the undoing of the curse, from Genesis 12 God has promised a blessing for the nations from the Jews according to the flesh. Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me." There were people who understood sufficiently.
We have the post-mystery knowledge of it and they had the mystery knowledge of it. Their knowledge was mysterious; ours is not. That's a sufficient way to state it without specifying the quantitative knowledge of Old Testament saints. Quantitatively it was far inferior to ours in many ways, but qualitatively it's the same object of faith — and therefore the same salvation.
Rich: Interesting about the object of faith: there are two or three folks in Hebrews 11 that had an eschatological hope that didn't exclusively terminate on the first coming of our Lord — it was new heavens, new earth kind of thing. Here we had people without the New Testament, without the incarnation, sufferings, and glory of Christ, who were looking beyond the promise terminating in the incarnation to an eschatological hope beyond that.
Part Six: Affirming 2LBC/WCF 8.6
Brandon: One part of both of our Confessions that gets brought up frequently in this discussion is Chapter 8, Paragraph 6:
"Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and forever."
The question that arises is: they feel that view necessitates their understanding of covenant theology — that you must say the old covenant is the covenant of grace. If you don't say that, you can't affirm 8.6. There's a little bit of nebulous discussion of what "communicated" means. Scott Clark wrote a series of posts on this and did not accurately represent our view, and each of you wrote responses. What is the definition of "communicated" there?
Sam: Among the various definitions — one that is contemporary to that time and pertinent to these kinds of semantic contexts — is: to impart, to transmit, or to give a share of. Specifically, what is it that is imparted, transmitted, or given? It is the virtue, efficacy, and benefits of Christ's work of redemption. Those things are imparted to the elect through these means. If we set the sacrifices aside for a moment, the statement reads: "The benefit thereof were imparted to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world in those promises wherein he was revealed to be the Seed which should bruise the serpent's head." It's not saying anything different from what we read in Chapter 20, Paragraph 1 — that the promise of Christ is the effectual means of salvation. There's nothing there that should present any confusion as to how we could affirm it.
The question then is: how do types and sacrifices communicate those benefits of Christ to the elect in the Old Testament? This is where the disagreement is located — and where the discussion needs to take place — is two-tier typology and the communication of Christ's grace prior to Christ's coming.
Part Seven: The Insufficiency of "Administration" Language
Sam: I understand the question Carlton asked several times: how does a commitment to 8.6 not entail necessarily a commitment to Westminster Federalism — how does this not commit you to say that the old covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace?
Here is where we need to do a better job of explaining our position, and there also needs to be better work done in historical theology. So bear with me as I explain this as best as I can.
When we say that the grace of Christ is communicated through promises, types, and sacrifices, we really mean that it is through the promises made known prior to Christ, and through the revelation of Christ in types — and in particular in the sacrifices — that Old Testament saints knew the promise of the gospel and believed the promise of the gospel and received the grace of Christ promised yet to come. So the grace of Christ is communicated to them through seeing Jesus Christ to come — ahead of them.
Now, someone may say: well, that requires a Westminster understanding of covenant theology, because that means the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. This is where we have to respond and say that the language of administration is insufficient to properly communicate the nuances of the biblical data, because it's true — and we should not deny — that the Old Testament ordinances are in this sense administering, communicating, imparting, conferring the grace of Jesus Christ to the faith of the elect in all ages. And someone says: well, you've just given everything away. But that's not true.
Because of two-tier typology, it is not the sacrifice in and of itself that communicates this. The type in and of itself communicates a different grace, a different blessing — we said the animal sacrifices purify the flesh. A type such as an animal sacrifice communicates two different graces: God's free remission of sins in purifying the flesh of an Israelite — that's what it does, that's what it is, in itself that's all it does. But it administers or communicates the grace of Christ insofar as it points you above and beyond itself to something other and greater — namely Christ's sacrifice, Christ's blood, and the perfect and eternal remission of sins that one obtains in him. So the grace of Christ is administered or communicated through those things, but only secondarily and only for those who see beyond the type by faith. Whereas everyone who participates in the type in its original context receives the remission of sins — the purification of their flesh — but for some of the Israelites, they saw beyond it, they saw above it.
So, just because something is subservient to the covenant of grace — just because something is typical of the covenant of grace — it does not mean that that thing, the type, is the reality itself. It's pointing to the reality. It is its own historical reality pointing on to something else.
When we talk about the old covenant or the subservient covenant, we're talking about the land of Canaan for the natural offspring of Abraham, who must maintain their purity and holiness to live within that land. They have a sacrificial system to forgive them and keep them in that land. That's as far as the old covenant went and that's what the old covenant did. Now this, of course, was typical of and therefore subservient to the covenant of grace, and made it known to the faith of the elect from its institution onward.
This is why the language of administration is insufficient — it's nebulous. It does not distinguish the two tiers — the typological or typical and the antitypical levels of Old Testament symbolism. Administration just doesn't get that specific. So I'm happy to say that the old covenant administered the grace of the new covenant, and yet I'm also happy to say that the old covenant is different in substance from the new covenant. It's two-tier typology that does this — which I base on the author to the Hebrews, and all the other arguments that the blood of goats and bulls purifies the flesh and therefore it cannot be the blood of Christ. It is not the promise of the old covenant. Whereas the blood of Jesus Christ perfects the conscience, brings us into the heavenly holy of holies, and is the better promise of the new covenant — which is distinct, therefore, in substance.
Brandon: How do we determine or define the "substance" of a covenant?
Sam: The substance would be what it is and what it grants. The old covenant purifies the flesh; it doesn't purify the conscience. Therefore, because it has an inferior and different promise from the new covenant, it cannot be the same in substance. And the fact that the grace of Christ is presented to the faith of believers secondarily through typology in the old covenant still doesn't make the old covenant the new covenant. It just means it's a type of the new covenant, and that the grace of Christ is made known there.
So in the old covenant you have those two levels present — they're both there. But our Presbyterian brothers, our paedobaptist dear Reformed brethren, are skipping over the first level. They're skipping over the earthly level — the purification of the flesh, the remission of sins through animal blood, the outward ceremonial holiness. They're skipping over the promise of the old covenant. Because they see the grace of Christ there, they're concluding too quickly and flattening out the discontinuity between the covenants.
One of my criticisms is that this is often done because of a systematic necessity. And older writers acknowledged this — if you go back to John Ball, Anthony Burgess, Stephen Marshall, they will say again and again: "So long as the grace of Christ is coming through those old testament ordinances, it is the same covenant." Whereas we would say: you're skipping over the blessings and benefits of the old covenant, which are distinct but typological of the new covenant blessings.
We're not denying the grace of the new covenant present in the old. But we are distinguishing the grace of the new covenant from the grace of the old. To have my flesh purified and my sins remitted in the land of Canaan is a grace — a benefit and a blessing from God. But the writer to the Hebrews says that's not it. And if you go back to those sacrifices for that remission, then you're saying Jesus hasn't come — you're saying that Jesus was not the Christ. That's why a return to the old is not just returning to an old form of the same thing — it's returning to something else that was preparatory and provisional and not the reality.
The shadow-substance language is informative: my shadow is not me. With trigonometry you could determine my height from my shadow — you could possibly discern my gender — you could know certain things about me from my shadow. But you couldn't speak to my shadow, you couldn't see a face in my shadow. So the remission of sins, the purification of the flesh from animal blood — it tells you about Christ, but it's not Christ. It portrays Christ, but it's not Christ. And so the old covenant in all of its typology does the same thing.
Why Didn't Old Testament Saints Simply Abandon the Sacrificial System?
Rich: One of the questions asked on Reformed Forum relative to this was: if an Old Testament Jew believes, looks forward to Christ, and apprehends him by faith — why would they continue to participate in the shadow if the shadow's just a bare form for them?
Sam: It's because it's not just a bare form. It does purify your flesh. Not only has God commanded you to do these things and you have to live according to his commands, but you're failing to acknowledge the grace, the benefits, the historical reality of what the old covenant did. So even though your sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ in the Old Testament, you still need to be restored to ceremonial purity to live in the land. You still need to participate in the sacrificial system — not to mention the fact that to divorce yourself from that system would be to divorce yourself from all of the typology and the revelation by which you know and by which your faith is strengthened relative to Jesus Christ. So it would be absurd for an Old Testament Jew to regard himself as an enlightened person and detach himself from the old covenant. How else are you going to have the grace of Christ communicated and administered to you? It is through those things — but secondarily.
Part Eight: Jeremiah 31 and the New Covenant
Brandon: Carlton kind of closed with a reference to Richard Gaffin. When he started the podcast he said "what are the things that are new about the new covenant?" and mentioned regeneration. I thought he meant therefore regeneration was a new benefit of the new covenant — but emailing with him a little bit, that's not what he meant. He meant that the old covenant also promised regeneration — it was equally a benefit of both covenants. So how do they understand that language? He said Richard Gaffin explained that Jeremiah and the author of Hebrews are referring to a historia salutis change in ordo salutis language — they are simply referring to the fact that Christ came and secured these benefits, not that these benefits are new. Do you have any comments on that?
Sam: I think it's a much more detailed discussion than what we have time to go through here. However, I will assert — but not really argue — that I believe Jeremiah 31 does contrast the old and new covenants as differing in substance and providing different graces in and of themselves. The old covenant does not purify the heart. The old covenant does not give the law inwardly. The old covenant does not take away sins as the new covenant does. Only the new covenant perfects the conscience, the soul, and eventually the body. The old covenant is not just a lesser form of the same thing — it is an altogether different thing that is subservient to and preparatory for the reality itself.
So I would regard Jeremiah 31 as absolutely saying what the old covenant could not do and has not done and will not do — what the new covenant will provide: it will forgive your sins, it will bring you everlasting forgiveness and make you right with God. The reality is coming. The days are coming.
Because of the Hebrews argument of animal blood and Jesus's blood giving different kinds of remission, I would see the old and new covenants as giving different kinds of remission and therefore differing in substance.
Rich: But Sam, that's not the same as saying — therefore, until the new covenant was historically inaugurated by the incarnation, sufferings, and glory of Christ, no one before that time enjoyed union with Christ and benefits. I need to agree with that.
I think the New Testament in at least one place lends credence to this. In 2 Timothy 3:15 we read: "From childhood you have known the sacred writings" — I take that to be the sacred writings of the Old Testament — "which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So it seems there that the Old Testament, prior to Christ's witness about himself and certainly prior to the writing of the New Testament, was able — you could say would have to be enabled by God — to give wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Brandon: There's a statement in Calvin's commentary on Hebrews 8 where — wrestling with verse 10, which talks about the Spirit working faith as a benefit of the new covenant — he was trying to say maybe it just means a more abundant grace, more abundant faith. But he says: wait a minute, Abraham's faith was stronger than mine, so that can't be what it means. And so his conclusion was:
"There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question."
And Calvin makes a comment in his Institutes about Augustine on this point. Augustine says something similar:
"The happy persons who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth were thereby made the children of promise and were accounted in the secret purposes of God as heirs of the new testament, although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the old testament to the ancient people of God."
Part Nine: Historical Theology
Sam: It would be helpful to show arguments from history that make the same points — especially about what I call two-tier typology and the nature of the subservient covenant.
John Cameron (1608)
John Cameron, in 1608, defended many theses about his three-covenant scheme in Heidelberg. He proposed a three-covenant model: the covenant of nature with Adam, the subservient covenant with the Israelites, and the covenant of grace. One important thing he did was in his discussion of typology. He said:
"The sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies of the ancients had their carnal use over and besides the spiritual signification."
There are your two levels — a carnal use over and besides also having a spiritual signification. He gives examples:
"So circumcision primarily did separate between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the nations; it did seal unto them the earthly promise. Secondarily it did signify out our sanctification. In like manner the Passover primarily signifies the passing over of the destroying angel; secondarily, Christ. So also the sacrifices and the cleansings: they represented primarily a certain carnal holiness; secondarily they figured out Christ and the benefits of the new covenant."
For John Cameron, there are two levels: a certain carnal use or carnal holiness that is primary, and then secondarily pointing out Christ and the benefits of the new covenant. This two-tier typology is why he calls the old/Mosaic covenant a subservient covenant — it provides different blessings from the new covenant, but it subserves it.
Brandon: I want to note that the OPC report on republication does helpfully acknowledge that statement from Cameron — it does quote it and says this is different from what's put forward in the Westminster Standards. The OPC report was very helpful — I think it's a great document. But it was helpful in clarifying that the subservient covenant view is contrary to the Westminster Standards, not that it has been sufficiently biblically engaged.
Samuel Bolton, Thomas Goodwin, and John Owen
Sam: Cameron's view finds a home especially among the Congregationalists. Bolton translated his theses and republished them in English and follows Cameron's view.
Thomas Goodwin names Cameron and follows his view of the subservient covenant, using two-tier typology. Goodwin says the Mosaic covenant was "an outward covenant with the Jews," and that their ordinances — "besides their spiritual use in typifying things heavenly to spiritual believers, they had an outward carnal use to the whole nation." So the entire nation of the Jews has an outward carnal use in the subservient old covenant; and there are also spiritual believers among them for whom these ordinances have a spiritual use typifying things heavenly.
Later he says the forgiveness provided by the sacrificial system was "a forgiveness of reproval, not to be destroyed for their sin." And: "They had a sanctification and a justification which were not really such — that is, not of the heart and conscience." When you use the sacrificial system, it will declare you just and holy according to the law — but that's not the sanctification and justification of the heart and conscience through Jesus Christ and the new covenant. He's acknowledging the two levels — the old covenant effected something different from what the new covenant effects, but they're related through typology.
And John Owen — he does not name Cameron but very much expresses the same model. Owen says, for example:
"All the Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal and had carnal ends assigned unto them, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal."
And: "There were some lines and shadows to represent the body, but the body itself was not there. There was something above them and beyond them which they reached not unto."
John Brinsley
John Brinsley was a Presbyterian minister in the 17th century. He asks the question: how can the sacrifices make an atonement? He makes a distinction between a twofold guilt — a ceremonial guilt against the law and a moral guilt in the conscience; an outward guilt and an inward guilt. He says:
"The sacrifices extended only to a ceremonial and temporal expiation, and that only of some sins, whereas the sacrifice of Christ extends to a real, eternal expiation and that of all sins."
Brinsley notes that the sacrifices are a type of Christ but effect a different kind of forgiveness for different kinds of infractions. He comments on Hebrews 9 and 10 — "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin." He says: yes, they could not take away the eternal guilt, but as far as external and temporal guilt, it extended to them.
The Core Question
Sam: That's what I want our Presbyterian brothers to affirm or deny: did the sacrifices of the Old Testament remit sins outwardly — were there carnal sins and carnal sacrifices efficacious apart from saving faith in Christ? Whether the participant had saving faith in Christ or not — as Thomas Goodwin said, it was effective to all the Israelites — and then had a spiritual significance above and beyond or beside its initial historical significance.
Did the old covenant offer a remission to all who participated in it rightly according to the law — distinct in substance from the remission that Jesus Christ provides? I would love to hear them discuss that point more specifically, because I think that is where agreement and disagreement can be made more clear.
Philip Carey
Sam: And just one last quote, from a Particular Baptist named Philip Carey:
"We do indeed acknowledge the subserviency of the law to Christ and the covenant of grace, but it does not therefore follow that the law is a covenant of gospel grace. The law is not the gospel, nor the gospel the law, and therefore, though the one of them is plainly subservient to the other, yet they ought not to be mixed, blended, or confounded the one with the other as if they were but one and the same covenant and no difference to be made between them, except in respect of different degrees of the discovery of gospel grace. A subserviency in anything to promote the ends of something else does not make it to be the thing itself, the ends whereof are promoted thereby."
The subservient covenant, as Samuel Bolton said, is the resolver to all these controversies. Bolton looked at Cameron's view and said: this is the key to all the debates. The subservient covenant view acknowledges the old covenant is not the covenant of works, but it is a covenant of obedience — and it's not the covenant of grace, but it portrays and prepares one for the grace of Jesus Christ and his covenant.
Did the animal blood remit sins or not? It did — but not in the way that Christ's blood did. Were Old Testament saints saved by the grace of Christ? Yes, absolutely. But were there other blessings and benefits they were all enjoying? All these questions are resolved by two-tier typology and a subservient covenant view.
I would love it to be more widely understood and recognized that covenant theology in the Reformed tradition is broader than the Westminster Confession, and that this subservient covenant view had plenty of proponents. The Presbyterians did tend to reject it quite explicitly, but the Congregationalists tended to embrace it quite explicitly. I'm very self-consciously following Cameron, Bolton, Goodwin, Burroughs, Owen, and the Particular Baptists who followed the same kind of argumentation — because I think it is faithful to the biblical data and it does indeed resolve many of these controversies.
I'd love to see our brothers affirm or deny two-tier typology. I think two-tier typology can even coexist with Vos's Triangle — I don't have time to go into that, but I wouldn't reject it; I'd just say you need to reevaluate the nature of the type. Is it the heavenly reality itself, or is it a picture of the heavenly reality through what it is in itself? We'd love to chase that rabbit, but we don't have time. That's where I see a beneficial conversation happening — and hopefully we can arrange some kind of discussion between us. I think that'd be the most helpful thing moving forward.
Rich: No further comments — just listening and learning. Thank you, Sam.
This discussion is a transcript of a roundtable with Brandon Adams (1689federalism.com), Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos, responding to Reformed Forum Christ the Center Episode 736.