Bunyan and the Mosaic Covenant and Covenant Theology in general

There is an on-the-mark understanding of biblical doctrine. It exists. Reformed theologians come closest, but it is a joke that they demand to insert their Romanist fetishes into the mix - infant baptism being their biggest Romanist fetish - at the expense of having the whole of God's plan in understanding and teaching that plan pure and whole. They convict themselves as valuing their own demands more than the truth.

Meanwhile their followers merely mouth what these teachers feed them. Look at this quote by one of them speaking of John Bunyan:

"But especially in his view of conversion, he reflected Puritan views, and without a solid doctrine of the covenant he had no room for the salvation of elect children in the line of the covenant..."

A more ignorant statement could not be uttered on the subject of John Bunyan and covenant theology in general.

Biblical doctrine is simple and elegant and can be understood by a child. Theologians make it complicated because they don't understand it, or, they understand it but the spirit of disobedience in them dictates that they must muck it up for the devil's cause.

The subject of the Mosaic Covenant is central regarding this for Reformed theologians. To maintain their Beast system (Romanist) infant baptism Reformed theologians refuse to acknowledge the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai. Yes, most of them are incapable of understanding Federal Theology at this level (clear evidence that if one has not the Spirit the most simple things will elude their understanding), but the fact is, many of them can understand it but refuse to accept it because it cuts their sacerdotalism - which gives power to man - off at the legs.

Read this to see whether or not Bunyan was "without a solid doctrine of the covenant", and note well how the on-the-mark biblical truth has no marriage with Romanist fetishes such as infant baptism. How surprising.


+ + + + + + +

E F Kevan, Samuel Petto and Covenant Theology

by Don Strickland

Ernest Kevan in his highly influential work, The Grace of Law, delineated two schools of thought on the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. Kevan identified this difference, whether the covenant at Sinai was either one of works or grace, as the point of contention between the orthodox and the antinomian Puritans. If one interpreted the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works, a danger of antinomianism was present, although certainly not all who held to this view were in fact Antinomian (for example, John Preston and Richard Sibbes). Far more of the orthodox Puritans held to the Mosaic Covenant as being an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Kevan overlooked a third position. This view was held by John Owen, but was more clearly championed by Samuel Petto. This third option breaks the tight continuity of the second view, and yet protects one's theology from the moral anarchy of antinomianism. The Covenant of Works was originally made with Adam prior to sin entering the world. Being based on the concept of 'Do this, and live', life was promised for obedience and death for disobedience. Justification came by way of man's works. The Covenant of Grace was necessitated by Adam's disobedience. Necessitated, because God decided to choose some of Adam's race for life, but life for any under Adam's federal headship could now only be achieved through grace. The Puritans had various ways to describe this Covenant of Grace, one being 'Believe this, and live'. Any discussion of the status of the Mosaic Covenant from the Puritan standpoint must keep this distinction in mind.

These two basic covenants cannot be mixed. Grace and works are not compatible. Works are destructive of grace. Therefore it is argued that a covenant must either be works or grace. The covenant with Adam was clearly one of works. Grace as the basis for the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants is also clearly evident. However, because the Mosaic Covenant has both ideas interwoven within its contents, one tends either to say that it is a Covenant of Works which looks toward grace with types and shadows, or an administration of the Covenant of Grace which emphasised the idea of obedience (Law). In both cases, the Mosaic Covenant was to be used to drive man to Christ as it set up the conditions under which he would appear. 'The rigour of the Law [its place in the covenantal structure] can easily be accounted for when the Law is thought of as the Covenant of Works, but it is less easy to do so when it is not so regarded.' The reason, Kevan writes, is that the Mosaic Covenant 'looked much like a Covenant of Works', and Christ did keep it as such. Those who argued for the Covenant of Works underscore the passages that speak of a 'Do this, and live' concept within the covenant made at Sinai with Leviticus 18:5 being a prominent verse.

John Ball spoke for those who held Sinai to be an administration of the Covenant of Grace when he argued that whenever God entered into a covenant with fallen man it must be a Covenant of Grace, therefore the Mosaic Covenant is a Covenant of Grace. The proponents for this position, beside pointing out the Ceremonial Law and its promise of mercy to those who kept it, point to the preface of the Decalogue as containing the heart of the Covenant of Grace formula. The Passover, the sacrament of the Mosaic Covenant, was kept by faith (Heb 11 :28). And the other Old Testament shadows and types all pointed to Christ, thus arguing for the presence of the Covenant of Grace.

Additionally, man cannot both be under a Works and a Grace Covenant at the same time. Samuel Petto points out that Moses and Israel were already under the Covenant of Grace through Abraham. Promise, not law, had been established as the way of salvation. Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant was not a Covenant of Works for man else it would not have been consistent with God's working through Abraham (Gal 3:16-18). And yet, even the most stringent authors recognised the Mosaic Covenant's use by the biblical writers as a Covenant of Works. What is the solution?

According to Petto the interpretative key is found in the New Testament passages referring to the Old and New Covenants. If one reads the pertinent passages, Hebrews 8,Galatians 3-4, or 2 Corinthians 3 for instance, the contrast between the grace exhibited in the New Covenant comes not from the Covenant of Works made with Adam, but from the covenant made with Israel at Sinai. This covenant is the one which is placed in opposition to the New Covenant. Some of the authors, however, who argue strongly for the Mosaic Covenant being one of grace, are the same ones who also argue for the identification of the Old Covenant with the Covenant of Works with Adam; or else they see no contradiction when the Old Covenant passages from Hebrews are used in connection with the Covenant of Works. However, the Old Covenant, treated as a Covenant of Works, appears inconsistent with the view of the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Petto agreed with these same writers by arguing that because of the major differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Works, the former could not be a Covenant of Works to Israel for their salvation. And yet, neither was the Old Covenant, strictly speaking, an administration of the Covenant of Grace. For, as Petto points out, when Israel sinned by making the golden calf, Moses pleaded for mercy not according to the covenant just made, but on the basis of God's covenant with Abraham (Ex 32:10-14).

Instead, Petto contended for a third option. He maintained that the Old Covenant was a distinct covenant from the New. They were not merely different administrations of the Covenant of Grace, but that they were actually two separate covenants. God repeated the Covenant of Works at Sinai in substance (Gal 3: 10,12) 'not that Israel should have eternal life, by their own doing; but that Jesus Christ should be born under the very law that we were obliged by, Galatians 4:4', in order to take on the curse and fulfil its righteousness. Israel was the guardian, or administrator, of this covenant until the Messiah should come, but the covenant itself, as to the expression of its eternal nature, was made with him, not with Israel. 'The Mount Sinai Covenant (with reference to the matter of it) may be said to express the legal condition of the Covenant of Grace, as to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ.' In order to fulfil the Covenant of Works and win the promised blessings, the Mediator had to be born under the stipulations of that covenant. And since the Covenant of Works had been broken in Eden, it had to be restored or reinstated. Thus the Old Covenant 'was a Covenant of Works to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ,' but it represented 'an imperfect administration of the Covenant of Grace to Israel' . It promised eternal life to the elect upon the obedience of Jesus Christ, and 'temporal mercies' to Israel upon their 'due obedience' to its commands.

Petto lists five reasons why the Old Covenant was a Covenant of Works to Jesus Christ. First, the Old Covenant excels all other covenants in describing what is required for legal righteousness. Only the Messiah could give the perfect obedience required of man (Lev 18:5; Gal 3: 10,12; Deut 6:25; Rom 10:3-5). Second, the Old Covenant pronounces a curse which none can undergo but Christ.

Third, no one but the Messiah could have purchased redemption for the elect in the Old Covenant (Gal 4:4-5). As is mentioned above, with Adam having broken the Covenant of Works, its promissory part was at an end. Only its curse remained. Therefore, the legal conditions needed to be given in a different covenant so that the Messiah could be born under the law. No one without sin could enter into the original Covenant of Works 'either to perform the righteousness of it, or to answer the penalty; it had nothing to do with an innocent person after it was broken [for it] was never renewed with man again as before'. Therefore, allowing an innocent man into it 'must be by some kind of repetition or renewing of it' to be fulfilled by a sinless person, thus it could not have been given to Israel in that sense. Israel voluntarily agreed (Ex 19:8 and 20: 19) to place themselves and their seed under the Old Covenant for its perfect obedience by the Messiah to come. Christ, being born a Jew, was born under the law. Merely to have been born of Adam (outside of Judaism) would not have been enough. The Old Covenant, then, 'was a necessary medium or means for the execution' of the New Covenant. Fourth, Christ underwent the very curse of the Old Covenant, so the elect would be delivered from it. Fifth, the ceremonies in the Old Covenant typically signify the Messiah's sufferings in order to enact the New Covenant. The typical ceremonial commands, just like the moral commands, were 'wrapped up' in Christ's perfect obedience for the elect's righteousness 'as the principle aim and intendment' of the Old Covenant.

The sacrifices for sin provided a way for Israel to obtain temporal blessings without perfect obedience to moral law, thus there was grace in the Old Covenant to Israel. These sacrifices did not, however, provide forgiveness 'to the Conscience'. The Old Covenant only committed God to Israel externally (Hosea I :9). The New Covenant internalised the Covenant of Grace (Jer 31). The ceremonial law appeared to confer spiritual blessing, but it was only a type and shadow of heaven intimating what would be purchased by the Messiah. Spiritual blessings were dispensed by the 'Covenant to Abraham, and though Israel's obedience to Moral Law was on another account a fruit of holiness and sanctification, yet as the same obedience had relation to the Mount Sinai Covenant, so it ushered in only temporals to them' . Being the legal aspect for the Covenant of Grace the Old Covenant carried conditions that required obedience which only the Messiah could fulfil. Every covenant supposes conditions to its fulfilment. Once those conditions have been met, however, that covenant becomes an absolute covenant - that which was promised is given. What of the conditionality of the Covenant of Grace?

The Westminster Confession gives faith as the requirement for the Covenant of Grace. Thomas Blake, possibly showing Neonomian tendencies, argued strongly for repentance (obedience) as an additional condition of the Covenant of Grace. He feared (and claimed) that even to seem to make the Covenant of Grace unconditional would disengage man from the process and invite Antinomianism. However, Petto rightly argued that the Law held forth obedience as righteousness unto justification which makes obedience different in the Old Covenant than in the New Covenant. In other words, the Law was for different ends depending on the covenant in force at the time. The Law in the Mosaic Covenant offered justification to whoever perfectly obeyed it, but the Law under the New Covenant was for man's sanctification. Blake believes the parties to the Covenant of Grace to be God and man. Petto reasons that both the Covenant of Works and Grace are not made with man immediately, but in and through a federal head. He understands the Covenant of Grace as being made with Christ and ties this position to his distinctive view of the nature of the covenants. Because the Old Covenant was the legal condition of the Covenant of Grace, the fulfilment of its conditions as a conditional covenant triggered the inception of the New Covenant as an absolute covenant. Petto is not suggesting that the New Covenant was an unconditional covenant. Rather, he was saying with other Puritans that Christ, by fulfilling the condition of the Old Covenant (the Law), had therefore made it into a new absolute covenant - the New Covenant, and thus, obtained its promised blessings which have been passed on to the elect. Therefore nothing a person can do can be a condition of the Covenant of Grace. Even faith with its concomitant obedience is all of grace.

Contrary to Blake, however, this position is not Antinomianism. Petto argues that works testify to our faith in God, and as such 'are required, not as conditions, but as effects and declarations of our justification'. With a man's regeneration, the Moral Law is written upon his heart. 'The Law written in the heart is the foundation of all obedience unto the Law, and the perfect writing of the Law in the heart is the highest reward of all the Promises, and all the obedience of the Gospel.' Christ's obedience to the law was for the elect's justification and life. The regenerate man's obligation to the moral aspect of the law is for sanctification 'that [he] may glorifie God by those fruits of [his] being spiritually alive'. Samuel Petto's book could have been written by a Baptist, except for the teaching of Baptism itself. This conclusion is exactly what was reached by Richard Greaves in his work on John Bunyan. Greaves, a noted Bunyan scholar, describes and documents Bunyan's position on the covenants, and in the process, Bunyan becomes a virtual mirror of Petto. Thus, Bunyan saw a resting place for the Baptist in this position. With the paedobaptistic continuity broken and the antinomian error avoided, this view appears to be a consistent Baptist view of God's covenants with man. Don Strickland is pursuing doctoral studies through Westminster Seminary and is a member of People's Bible Church, Greenville, SC where Stuart Latimer is pastor.

This article was published in Reformation Today, Issue 137, January 1994.