19

Nov
2014

By Brandon Adams

Biblical-Theological Exposition and Hermeneutics

On 19, Nov 2014 | In Resources, Richard Barcellos | By Brandon Adams

by Richard Barcellos [PDF available here]

The Bible is a big book. It contains 66 books written by many different human authors over a wide range of time and in diverse geographic, cultural, political, and religious circumstances. There are two main sections to our English Bibles – the Old and the New Testament. There are several different genres of literature in the Bible – e.g., narrative/history, law, poetry, prophecy, gospels (i.e., theological biographies), epistles, and apocalyptic. These factors make interpreting the Bible a difficult task at times. Those who do not view the Bible as the inspired, infallible, and inerrant written Word of God often use these factors to pit one section of Scripture against others. They do not see it as containing a system of doctrine. System, in their thinking, is impossible due to the various human authors and other factors mentioned above. Denying divine inspiration, there is no reason to expect a cohesive story-line and doctrinal continuity.

Those of us who view the Bible as the written Word of God, however, are committed to allow it to speak authoritatively on anything and everything it comments upon. And one the things the Bible comments upon is itself. In other words, texts often pick up on previous texts and further explain their meaning. This happens with words, phrases, verses, passages, persons, events, institutions, places, and concepts. When this occurs, it is the divine use or interpretation of a previous divine revelation. In other words, the Bible sometimes interprets the Bible for us and when it does, the way subsequent revelation interprets and applies antecedent revelation gives us (at least in part) the divinely intended meaning of the antecedent text. This is not to say that the interpreter of a text cannot find out its meaning unless the Bible interprets it for us, but it is to say that when the Bible interprets itself, the interpretation is infallible and reflective of the divine intention for and use of that text. Because the Bible is divinely inspired, a whole- Bible hermeneutic is crucial in understanding both the parts and the whole of Scripture.

Our seventeenth-century forbears knew this well. The Reformed orthodox were exegetically driven and their hermeneutic was a whole-Bible hermeneutic, evidenced in such concepts as their highly nuanced view of sensus literalis (literal sense), analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture), analogia fidei (analogy of faith), and scopus Scripturae (scope of Scripture).¹ It is of vital importance to understand the nuances involved with these concepts in order to properly understand how our Confession comes to the conclusions it does and, more importantly, to interpret the Bible properly. But this is beyond the scope of our study. However, a brief introduction may help at this point. We will now look at two crucial hermeneutical concepts.

Two Crucial Hermeneutical Concepts

Analogia Scripturae

Analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture), as defined by Muller, involves “the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event” (emphases mine)² This can be illustrated by the synoptic Gospels. But it can also be illustrated by Paul’s explanation of the relationship between Adam and Christ in Romans 5.

Analogia fidei

Analogia fidei (analogy of faith) is broader than analogia Scripturae. It refers to

the use of a general sense of the meaning of Scripture, constructed from the clear or unambiguous loci…, as the basis for interpreting unclear or ambiguous texts. As distinct from the more basic analogia Scripturae…, the analogia fidei presupposes a sense of the theological meaning of Scripture.³

This principle aids us in understanding why certain acts were considered wrong prior to the promulgation of the Decalogue. Why was murder wrong prior to a law forbidding it being explicitly revealed by God and inscripturated? If the narrative of Genesis assumes it’s a sin, upon what basis does it do so? The answer lies in subsequent revelation which often makes explicit what is implicit in antecedent revelation. While the narrative of Genesis assumes some actions to be wrong, it is the function of other parts of the Bible to tell us why.

Both of these interpretive concepts presuppose “the canonical character of the whole of Scripture and the assumption that the canon, as such, was inspired and the infallible rule of faith.”⁴ In other words, we ought to derive Bible doctrine not only from individual biblical texts but from the totality of the entire text as a completed whole.

Five Ways the Bible Interprets Itself

There are several key hermeneutical principles embedded in Scripture that are essential to understand and apply when doing biblical-theological exposition. Our Confession recognizes this in 2LCF 1:9, which says:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.

Here the Confession asserts a principle of pre-critical biblical interpretation. The Bible comments upon the Bible. Though it does not list how the Bible interprets itself (that is beyond the purpose of a confession), it recognizes that it does. This brings rise to an important question: In what ways does the Bible interpret the Bible? There are at least five technical terms that seek to identify the ways the Bible interprets itself. We will discuss each briefly.

Intertextuality

The Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (PDBS) defines intertextuality as follows:

The phenomenon that all texts are involved in an interplay with other texts, which results in the interpretive principle that no text can be viewed as isolated and independent. This interplay is particularly true of biblical literature, since each document, or text, is self-consciously part of a stream of tradition. The study of intertextuality pays attention to the fragments, or “echoes,” of earlier texts that appear in later texts, examining texts that share words and themes.⁵

The basic thought here is that all biblical texts are, at some level, involved with all other biblical texts in revealing a cohesive story. This is illustrated, for instance, in the sharing of words, phrases, concepts, and/or themes from antecedent revelation by subsequent revelation. With reference to the Bible, intertextuality is assured by the fact of inspiration. We will see the concept of intertextuality many times in our subsequent studies.

Inner-Biblical Exegesis

The PDBS defines inner-biblical exegesis as follows:

An approach to the text that seeks to address the re-interpretation and reapplication of earlier biblical texts by later texts. The detection of inner-biblical exegesis is more developed in OT studies, largely due to the monumental study by M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985). Direct quotations are the most obvious application of this method, but inner-biblical exegesis also looks at glosses⁶ in a text, the arrangement of material in its present form, and the use of words, themes and traditions in other texts. For example, a scholar studying inner-biblical exegesis might examine the relationship of Isaiah 2:2-4 to Joel 3:10 and Micah 4:1-3, or the use that Hosea puts to the traditions of Genesis 32 regarding Isaac and Esau. This approach to texts shares features with interpreting “Scripture in the light of Scripture” but focuses more on the literary and historical relationships rather than the theological or spiritual ones.⁷

The basic thought here is that the Bible sometimes interprets and applies the Bible. We will see this fleshed-out below.

Allusion

G. K. Beale defines New Testament allusion as “a brief expression consciously intended by an author to be dependent on an OT passage.”⁸

Differentiating between quotation and allusion, he says, “…allusions are indirect references.”⁹ There are hundreds (and hundreds?) of scriptural allusions in the Bible. One thing that allusions teach is that the writers of Scripture possessed a canonical consciousness. They realized that God had revealed his mind to us. The Old Testament is full of allusions of itself. It frequently gives indirect reference to antecedent events, institutions, places, and/or persons. For instance, when the Old Testament mentions God as creator (i.e., Psa. 19:1-6; 33:6ff.), it is alluding, at least implicitly, to the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 and 2 is foundational to the Bible’s doctrine of creation and other doctrines, such as anthropology, soteriology, and Christology.

A New Testament example of allusion can be seen in Matthew 1:1. There are at least five allusions to antecedent revelation in this one verse. Can you name them?¹⁰ Another New Testament allusion is found in John 3:14. How many allusions to the Old Testament are in this text?¹¹ Another New Testament example of allusion may be in Colossians 1:6 and 10. Is Paul alluding to antecedent revelation? Prior to answering that question, take into consideration these words from G. K. Beale:

the mandate of Gen. 1:28 is repeated throughout the OT – for example, Gen. 9:1, 6-7; 12:2; 17:2, 6, 8; 22:17-18; 26:3, 4, 24; 28:3-4; 35:11-12; 47:27; Exod. 1:7; Lev. 26:9; Ps. 8:5-9; 107:38; Isa. 51:2; Jer. 3:16; 23:3; Ezek. 36:10-11, 29-30, most of which contain the actual terminology of “increase and multiply,” and several of which have the phrase “all the earth”…¹²

What is Paul alluding to in Colossians 1:6 and 10?¹³

The last two examples of allusion are very interesting in light of our study. If John 3:14 is alluding to Psalm 8:4 (through Daniel 7:13-14) and taking into consideration that Hebrews 2 seems to connect it to Christology and if Colossians 1:6 and 10 allude to Genesis 1:28, this would indicate the importance of creation as the temporal foundation of the relationship between Adam and Christ. If this is so (and I think it is), then understanding Adam’s constitution and vocation is vital for a proper understanding of the Bible. This reminds me of a conversation I once had with Dr. Vern Poythress. I said, “Dr. Poythress, is it true that if you get the Garden wrong, you get eschatology wrong?” He answered, “If you get the Garden wrong, you get everything wrong.” Understanding protology, the first words of the Bible, is crucial if we are to understand anthropology, soteriology, Christology, and eschatology. Dr. Poythress was right.

Echoes

G. K. Beale thinks the term echo and the concept it embodies is not that helpful and does not warrant a distinct category.¹⁴ What is meant by echo, according to Beale, is “a subtle reference to the OT that is not as clear a reference as an allusion.”¹⁵ I agree with Beale. If an echo is a weak allusion then it’s an allusion.

Typology

I want to offer some brief thoughts on typology as an introduction to this important hermeneutical issue. First of all, typology is not allegory. Allegory does not respect the historical reality of the text of Holy Scripture and thus finds meanings in texts with no analogy in Scripture. Typology, however, assumes the historical reality of the text and that God intended to typify something by the text that can be known by us due to a subsequent analogy or subsequent analogies in Scripture.

A few introductory thoughts on typology

First, a type is a historical person, place, institution, or event that was designed by God to point to a future historical person, place, institution, or event. An example would be the sacrificial system revealed to us in the Old Testament. That institution was designed by God to point to Christ’s once for all sacrifice.

Second, that to which types point is always greater than the type itself. In other words, there is some sort of escalation in the anti-type. For example, “the blood of bulls and goats” could point to Christ but they could not and did not do what Christ’s sacrifice did – take away sins.

Third, types are both like and unlike their anti-types. There is both correspondence and escalation. The blood of animals was shed; the blood of Christ was shed. The blood of animals did not take away sins; the blood of Christ takes away sins.

Fourth, anti-types tell us more about how their types function as types. The blood of Christ takes away sins; the blood of animals pointed to that.

Adam and Christ as an example of biblical typology

I think you will see the importance of understanding the typological relationship between Adam and Christ for our purposes. This is why I chose to include this section. Adam was the first sinner, the first transgressor of God’s law. Christ, as anti-typical new Adam, secures justification and eternal life via righteousness. This has much to do with the law of God as will be seen below and in subsequent discussions.

Adam was “a type of Him who was to come” (Rom. 5:14). Adam was a type of Christ in his prelapsarian state. He did not become a type of Christ after his fall into sin and certainly not until Paul penned Romans 5:14. Adam was a type of Christ as a public person (1 Cor. 15:22); he represented others. Adam’s failure is seen in the fact that he disobeyed or he failed to obey (Rom. 5:12ff.). But what if he had obeyed? Would he have stayed in the state in which he was created – able to sin and able not to sin? I don’t think so and, I think, for good reason. This is no mere speculative or abstract question. The Bible does give us answers to this question and understanding the typological relationship between Adam and Christ is one key (the key?) that unlocks the answer for us. And, as stated above, this is related to the subject we are studying. Let’s think through this together.

In Romans 5:21, God says, “even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ.” Note the prepositional phrases: “through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ.” The righteousness that is “to eternal life” comes as a gift to sinners and is based on Christ’s obedience or “through [His] righteousness.” The life-unto-death obedience of Christ constitutes a righteousness “to eternal life.” In other words, in his sinless human nature as the anti-type of prelapsarian Adam, Christ earned eternal life for us. Listen to Guy Waters on this passage:

The fact that Christ purchased eternal “life” for his own, and that he did so for those who were eternally “dead” in Adam means that Christ’s work was intended to remedy what Adam had wrought (death), and to accomplish what Adam had failed to do (life). Paul emphasizes disparity in his argument precisely in order to underscore the breathtaking achievement of what Christ has accomplished in relation to what Adam has wrought. This means that if Adam by his disobedience brought eternal death, then his obedience would have brought eternal life. In other words, Christ’s “obedience” and its consequence (“eternal life”) parallel what Adam ought to have done but did not do. The life that Adam ought to have attained would have been consequent upon Adam’s continuing, during the period of his testing, in obedience to all the commands set before him, whether moral or positive. This life, it stands to reason, could be aptly described “eternal.””¹⁶

Eternal life was earned by Christ for us and given by Christ to us. The quality of life Christ attains for us and gives to us is not what Adam had and lost but what Adam failed to attain. Adam did not possess “eternal life.” Listen to Robert Shaw, commenting on the Covenant of Works:

There is a condition expressly stated, in the positive precept respecting the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man’s obedience. There was a penalty subjoined: ‘In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ There is also a promise, not distinctly expressed, but implied in the threatening; for if death was to be the consequence of disobedience, it clearly follows that life was to the reward of obedience. That a promise of life was annexed to man’s obedience, may also be inferred from…our Lord’s answer to the young man who inquired what he should do to inherit eternal life: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments’ (Matthew 19:17); and from the declaration of the apostle, that ‘the commandment was ordained to life’ (Romans 7:10).¹⁷

Just as Adam’s disobedience brought upon him a status not his by virtue of creation, so Adam’s obedience would have brought upon him a status not his by virtue of creation. Christ as anti-typical Adam, the last Adam, takes his seed where Adam failed to take his, and He does this via obedience.

Consider the fact that Adam sinned and fell short of something he did not possess via creation, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). We know that, in Paul’s writings, Adam was the first man who sinned. The first man sinned and fell short of the glory of God; he fell short of something he did not experience via his created status. He was not created in a state that could be called “glory” and he fell short of that state by sinning. He failed to attain to that state because he sinned. In other words, Adam was created in a state that could have been improved. Listen to John Owen:

Man, especially, was utterly lost, and came short of the glory of God, for which he was created, Rom. iii. 23. Here, now, doth the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God open itself. A design in Christ shines out from his bosom, that was lodged there from eternity, to recover things to such an estate as shall be exceedingly to the advantage of his glory, infinitely above what at first appeared, and for the putting of sinners into inconceivably a better condition than they were in before the entrance of sin.¹⁸

For Owen, “the glory of God” here does not refer exclusively to what God possesses, but what God confers.

Listen to Paul in Romans 5:1-2, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God…and we exult in hope of the glory of God.” Charles Hodge says:

It is a[n]…exultation, in view of the exaltation and blessedness which Christ has secured for us. …The glory of God may mean that glory which God gives, or that which he possesses. In either case, it refers to the exaltation and blessedness secured to the believer, who is to share the glory of his divine Redeemer.¹⁹

We get glory because it is conferred upon us and that because of what Christ has done for us. This is that to which Adam fell short.

The Old Testament spoke about the Messiah who would come, suffer (due to Adam’s sin and us in him), and enter into glory (Luke 24:46; Acts 26:19-23; 1 Pet. 1:10- 12). The Son of God incarnate both suffered and entered into glory, which I think means a glorified state in his human nature after his sufferings via his resurrection and due to his obedience. In other words, his human nature became what it was not at the resurrection. Sufferings and glory is another way of saying humiliation and exaltation. Paul speaks of the Son’s humiliation and exaltation in Romans 1:1-4 and Philippians 2:6- 9. His representation in the state of humiliation started at his conception and ended at his death-burial. Upon his death-burial, because of his obedience to the point of death, “God highly exalted Him…” The incarnate Son of God obeyed and suffered due to sin; he entered into glory as a result or reward for his obedience and he did both as the last Adam representing those given to him by the Father before the world began.

Adam failed to comply with the condition of the covenant God imposed upon him and brought with that the ruin of the human race. He fell short of the glory of God, a state of permanent existence in God’s special presence he did not possess via creation. But here is the good news – another came, the last Adam, the anti-type of the first Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered, then entered into glory at his resurrection, who will bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10) who will also “gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14). Listen to Owen on 2 Thessalonians 2:14, ““The glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,” or the obtaining a portion in that glory which Christ purchased and procured for them…”²⁰ Christ purchased glory for all he came to save. He did so as the anti-typical, last Adam. He suffered to take care of the justice of God and his obedience unto death got him exalted, entering into glory, and all those who are his will enter into glory as well. The last Adam takes his seed where the first Adam failed to take his. The anti-type is better than or greater than the type.

In this brief discussion, we can see that both Adam and Christ were historical figures, Christ is greater than Adam, Christ is both like and unlike Adam, and Christ as anti-type (and the explanation of his work by the biblical writers) helps us understand Adam’s function as type better.

Conclusion

Having discussed the biblical-theological interpretive method assumed in what follows, it is now time to look at the Bible on the functions of the law in biblical history. Before we do that, however, I hope you are beginning to see how important our hermeneutical principles are in understanding the Bible, and especially the first few chapters of the Bible. While the narrative of Genesis 1-3 (and elsewhere in Genesis) might be sparse on details, we have Genesis 4-Revelation 22 to help us interpret it and fill in the theological gaps.

Our brief analysis of the typological relationship between Adam and our Lord Jesus Christ brings rise to some interesting questions: first, what was the rule of righteousness Adam was under; second, how does that rule of righteousness function after the fall in Adam and the rest of mankind; third, is that rule of righteousness revealed in the Bible and if so, where; fourth, how does that rule of righteousness relate to the work of the Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ; and fifth, does that rule of righteousness relate to believers in Christ and if so how? These are important questions. To varying degrees, the answers to these questions will be provided in the rest of our study.

J. I. Packer lists six governing principles of interpretation for the English Puritans: 1. Interpret Scripture literally and grammatically. 2. Interpret Scripture consistently and harmonistically. 3. Interpret Scripture doctrinally and theocentrically. 4. Interpret Scripture christologically and evangelically. 5. Interpret Scripture experimentally and practically. 6. Interpret Scripture with a faithful and realistic application. Cf. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 101-05. Cf. also Barry Howson, “The Puritan Hermeneutics of John Owen: A Recommendation,” WTJ 63 (2001): 354-57. ↩
Muller, Dictionary, 33; cf. Muller, PRRD, II:490-91, and 493-97. ↩
Muller, Dictionary, 33; cf. Muller, PRRD, II:491-92 and 493-97. ↩
Muller, PRRD, II:474, 492. ↩
PDBS, 63. ↩
A gloss is “[a] name given to words, phrases or verses that first appeared as clarifications or corrections in the margins of a text but then were added or incorporated secondarily into the text itself. For example, the clarification that a scribe placed into the margin at John 5:3-4, regarding the stirring of the water at the pool of Beth-zatha, was eventually brought into the text in several manuscripts (see NRSV footnotes).” Cf. PDBS, 50. ↩
PDBS, 63. ↩
G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 31. ↩
Beale, Handbook, 31. ↩
Genealogy, Jesus (Joshua), Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham. ↩
I think there at least three: 1) Numbers 21:6-9; 2) Daniel 7:13-14 [and Psa. 8:4?]; and 3) Isaiah 52:13-15. ↩
G. K. Beale, “Colossians” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Caron, eds., Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 844. ↩
Cf. Beale, “Colossians,” 842-846 for his extended argument seeking to prove that Paul has in mind the Genesis mandate as carried out by Christ, the Last Adam, and his bride, the Church. ↩
Beale, Handbook, 32. ↩
Beale, Handbook, 32. ↩
Guy P. Waters, “Romans 10:5 and the Covenant of Works” in Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen, Editors, The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 230. ↩
Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Geanies House Fern, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1998), 124-25. ↩
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Volume II (Edinburgh, Scotland and Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprinted 1990), 89. ↩
Charles Hodge, Romans (Edinburgh/Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 133. ↩
Owen, Works, XI:203. ↩

Tags | biblical theology, hermeneutics

Does 1689 Federalism require "Regeneration Goggles"?

Critics of 1689 Federalism often caricature baptists as claiming to know who the elect are. This does not follow from any 1689 Federalism belief. We agree with the reformed "judgment of charity." Based upon a credible profession of faith, we judge (with charity) a person to be saved. The only difference is that we do not believe that being born to a professing parent is sufficient warrant to charitably judge a person to be saved. Note this statement from an 1857 issue of the Princeton Review

And this statement from Hodge in an 1858 Princeton Review.

As well as this statement from Scottish Presbyterian John Erskine (1765).

Is the Covenant Theology of the 1689 Confession Substantially Different from the 1644/46?

No.

[T]he writings of the men who published the First London Confession demonstrate that they were committed to the same kind of Covenant Theology that is more explicitly articulated in the Second London Confession. John Spilsbury, sometimes suggested as the author of the First Confession, writing in his 1643 book A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptisme, said on the very first page of the text, “As the Scriptures being a perfect rule of all things, both for faith and order; this I confesse is a truth. And for the just and true consequence of Scripture, I doe not deny; and the covenant of life lying between God and Christ for all his elect, I doe not oppose: and that the outward profession of the said Covenant, hath differed under severall Periods, I shall not deny.” No Substantial Theological Difference between the First and Second London Baptist Confessions

Though the word “covenant” is not used extensively in the [1644] document, the concept is at the very root of the theology described. After an introductory paragraph and several important statements about God, his purposes in the world, and the centrality of Scripture, paragraph x explicitly introduces the language of “covenant.” We are told that Jesus Christ (who is the theme of Scripture, paragraphs viii and ix) is the “mediator of the new Covenant, even the everlasting covenant of grace. Covenant Theology in the First and Second London Baptist Confessions, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage

Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?

1689 Federalism teaches that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, nor Davidic covenants were the Covenant of Grace. Neither was the Covenant of Grace established in Genesis 3:15. The question then naturally arises: Did the Covenant of Grace exist during the Old Testament? The 1689 Federalism answer to this question centers around the meaning of "established"/"enacted" (Hebrews 8:6). First, the 2LBCF states in 7.3 that "it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality..." Among its references on this particular statement are Hebrews 11:6, 13 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him... by faith Noah... by faith Abraham... All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." Rom 4:1, 2, &c "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" and John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Thus when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant - notably Abraham - from "the grace of this covenant." Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ. In sum, this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof. How can we affirm this while at the same time holding that the New Covenant of Grace was not established until the death of Christ? In the same way that we can affirm that Abraham and other OT saints were covered by the blood of Christ prior to Christ's actual death on the cross (2LBCF 8.6). Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could "take to the bank." In other words, the New Covenant was effectual prior to the death of Christ as an "advance" on it's formal establishment in the future (similar to the way a person can receive a cash advance on their paycheck prior to payday). If the New Covenant of Grace was "in effect" since Genesis 3:15, then how can we say it was not established until the death of Christ? First, because its legal effectiveness as a covenant is entirely rooted in the death of Christ. Second, because the "establishment" of the New Covenant refers also to its being reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance - to its being made visible. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, was then made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise (Gen 3:15, etc), it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was then brought to light, and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was then solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, were all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. The basic idea of the Covenant of Grace revealed and "in effect" prior to its legal establishment (where it is given ordinances of worship) is articulated by Louis Berkhof. "The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant... Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church." We would simply say that the New Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace.

The following are statements by 1689 Federalism theologians affirming the above. Samuel & Micah Renihan:

Christ is the one and only federal head of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant... [T]he covenant of grace is the retro-active application of the New Covenant... The fact that we see this redemption promised and typified from the fall onward has led Reformed theologians to see God’s grace extending into history prior to the incarnation and death of Christ. Where God’s grace extended into the past, it came by way of covenant, wherein Christ’s blood of the New Covenant was retroactively applied to those who believed in the promise, and that retroactivity of the New Covenant was and remains distinct from the Old Covenant. Thus, Christ’s people have always been those who were promised to him by the Father, and it is those people for whom he spilled his blood. Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology, in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, p. 487, 490

Nehemiah Coxe

During the time of the law… [t]he children of God after the Spirit (though as underage children they were subject to the pedagogy of the law, yet) as to their spiritual and eternal state, walked before God and found acceptance with him on terms of the covenant of grace… this spiritual relationship to God [was] according to the terms of the new covenant which the truly godly then had[.] Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, p. 133

Samuel Renihan

The language of administration is extremely nebulous and problematic. Many responses to the above videos and data [referring to 1689federalism.com] have pushed back by saying that the old covenant(s) were means through which OT believers obtained salvation, and thus were “Administrations” in the sense of “getting thing A to person B.” Surely that is the case. LBCF 8.6 confesses this… But while the use of administration in the WCF includes the notion of “getting thing A to person B,” its use of “Administration” refers more fully to “a diverse manner of dispensing, and outward managing the making of the covenant with men, but the covenant was still one and the same, clothed and set forth in a diverse manner, and did no other ways differ then and now, but as one and the self same man differeth from himself, cloathed sutably one way in his minority, and another in his riper age.” [David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: 1697), 142.] The administration is the outward visible form of covenantal life and organization… The question is, was the old covenant a visible organizational form of covenantal life for the covenant of grace? The question is not, were the benefits of Christ’s mediation available in the old covenant? All are agreed on the second question. It is the first question that needs careful answering. This is the difference between the substance of the covenant of grace being revealed in the old covenant and actually being the old covenant in an older form. Particular Baptists and the Substance/Administration Distinction

Jeffery Johnson

The 1689 does not claim that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. Rather, it simply says that the covenant of grace was innately revealed in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15), and then with greater clarity it was revealed throughout the progression of the Old Testament dispensation until it came to its fullest manifestation in the New Testament: “This covenant is revealed [not established] in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament” (7:3). More explicitly, the 1689 says that the covenant of grace, which was established by the blood of Jesus, was retroactive during the Old Testament dispensation: “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages” (8:6). This is in agreement with Benjamin Keach who said: “All believers, who lived under the Old Testament, were saved by the covenant of grace, which Christ was to establish.”2 This implies that the covenant of grace is identical to the New Covenant. So rather than the covenant of grace being established through various administrations of the different covenants of the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), it was established by Christ in the New Covenant. Therefore, Old Testament believers were saved by faith in Christ, in the same way New Testament believers are saved by faith in Christ. Or as paragraph 3 states: “It is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality” (7:3). The Confession of 1689 and Covenant Theology

Pascal Denault

The covenant of grace is, simply put, salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone... The Epistle to the Hebrews attributes directly to the grace of the New Covenant (the covenant of grace), the salvation of those who were called since the fall:
And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).
Even if the sacrifice of the covenant of grace by which all blessings proceed was not shed till long after the promise was made, many had already been called and did possess by faith the eternal inheritance. The retroactive efficacy of the New Covenant is one of the main reasons why many Particular Baptists equated the covenant of grace with the New Covenant... Where Was the Covenant of Grace During the Old Covenant Time? If the Old Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace what was it and where was the covenant of grace during this time? The first part of LBC 7:3 answers this question:
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament…
The 1689 federalism replaced the paedobaptist concept of one covenant of grace under different administrations by the one covenant of grace revealed by farther steps model... The New Covenant is the concrete manifestation of the heavenly realities in the visible world. It’s only by this covenant (New Covenant) that the eternal inheritance (eternal covenant of redemption/covenant of grace) is given (Hebrews 9:15). The confession ends this section by affirming that “it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality”. Thus, from all time, all those that were saved, were saved by the grace offered in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Before it was established in the form of a covenant sealed in the blood (Hebrews 13:20) it was revealed by a promise guaranteed by God’s oath (Hebrews 6:17). This covenant of grace revealed and concluded in history is founded on the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son for the redemption of the elect. It is the exclusive source of salvation according to what Scripture expressly declares: “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). From the Covenant of Works to the Covenant of Grace

[Link to this Question]

Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational?

No. It is actually anti-Dispensational. Charles Ryrie identified 3 essential tenets of Dispensationalism.

Keeping Israel and the church distinct throughout eternity.
A hermeneutic of literal interpretation. (#1 is derived from #2)
Salvation is not the main underlying purpose of God’s work in history.

1689 Federalism rejects all 3. With regards to #1, Ryrie says “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist… The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church [throughout eternity]. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation [#2]… The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.” And finally “The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace,” (as 1689 Federalism does). On each of these essential points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is contradictory to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.” 1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist). For a longer explanation, please see Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational? (Contrast) [Link to this Question]

When Did the Church Begin?

The church began in Genesis 3:15 and the church began at Pentecost. How can both be true? Because of the visible/invisible church distinction as it relates to the promised/established New Covenant. Old Testament saints were saved in the same way that we are today: through saving faith produced by the regenerating power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2LBC 8.6, 8.8, 10.1, 11.6). They were united to Christ and were therefore part of his mystical body, the church (2LBC 26.1). But it does not therefore follow that Israel was the church ("assembly") of Christ. Israel was an assembly, but not the assembly of Christ (Heb. 12:23). Though regenerate Old Testament saints were part of the body of Christ, they were a remnant within the broader body of the assembly of Israel (which was governed by the Old Covenant). Likewise, believers outside of Israel were not under the Old Covenant (for example, Lot & Melchizedek were not circumcised - see Coxe p. 117-118). It was not until Pentecost that the invisible church gathered ("assembled") together as the assembly of Christ (the church) (2LBC 26.2, 26.5-7). The visible church was instituted at Pentecost and given ordinances of worship and its own government. John Owen explains how this relates to the New Covenant as promised & established.

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 unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant 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 unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto 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. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced 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 worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its 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 be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. (Exposition of Hebrews 8:6) The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences. (Exposition Hebrews 8:10)

Thus the church began as soon as God began to redeem lost sinners through the promise of the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15), which was efficacious to save, bringing an individual into the invisible church. But it was not until the New Covenant was formally established that the visible church was instituted with its own worship and governance. Consider Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the 1689 Confession on this point:

Does the Bible teach that this universal church consists of all the elect? Here a distinction is crucial. The church is the final, organized, earthly expression of the people of God. We must distinguish between the church as an institution and the church as the people of God. Such a distinction enables us to do justice to portions of the New Testament which are frequently misinterpreted. There was a very important sense in which the church began as an institution and organism in the complex of events surrounding Christ's first advent. There was a sense in which historically the church began in the vents of Christ's earthly ministry, death, resurrection and pouring out of the Spirit. The apostles of Christ are the historical foundation upon which Christ is now building his church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 12:18-24). The future tense in the statement of Christ, 'I will build my church', may, therefore, be given its natural force. Though Israel was a type of the church (Rom. 2:28-29; 1 Cor. 10:18; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3) and though the church is the new Israel of God and the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16; 15:14-18; 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 6:16; Eph 2:12-19; Heb. 8:7-13), it is true that the church as an institution and organism did not exist in the Old Testament. These truths contradict the tendency of some strains of covenant theology to flatten the difference between the church and Israel in the interests of paedo-baptism. On the other hand, the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-116; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18; 2:4). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist 'of the whole number of the elect'. These considerations refute Dispensationalism with its church/Israel distinction and its denial that the Old Testament saints are part of the church.

For more, see Tom Ascol's Toward a Confessional Doctrine of the Church (3-Part Video). [Link to this question]

What about the apostasy passages? (Hebrews 10, John 15, etc)

Paedobaptists often appeal to various "apostasy passages" as final proof that the new covenant/covenant of grace contains reprobate members who can be cut off. The important thing to note is that these passages do not teach a two-sided dual-sanction covenant of grace. Rather, paedobaptists arrive at such a view of the covenant of grace from their belief that the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of grace, and then import such a view into these passages. They believe such a view is the only way to make sense of Hebrews 10:29 and John 15:1-6, but it is important to recognize that view of the covenant of grace is brought to those texts, not derived from them. For a 1689 Federalism understanding of the texts in question, please see:

[Link to this answer]

Was the Mosaic Covenant THE Covenant of Works?

However one views the Mosaic Covenant, it cannot be a republication of the Covenant of Works as it stood with Adam. This is so for at least two reasons: first, Adam was sinless; and second, Adam represented others. Israel was neither sinless nor representative of others. So if we view the Mosaic Covenant as republishing something of the Covenant of Works, it cannot be the essence and substance of that covenant on its original terms. It may be (and I think it is) a republication of certain principles of the original Covenant of Works, but for different purposes than initially given. -Richard Barcellos

While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson. For much more on this question, including extensive interaction between these two views by modern proponents, please see Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life [Link to this answer]

Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?

No. 1689 Federalism is a view of covenant theology (distinguished by its belief that the old and new covenants are different, distinct covenants and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by every published particular baptist work in the 17th century. It accounts for the change in language found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession with regards to covenant theology (in comparison to the WCF). However, this new language was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it. The label "1689 Federalism" is not intended to suggest that no other view is permissible amongst confessional baptists. In his book From Shadow to Substance, Samuel Renihan elaborates.

Throughout this time [1640s and 1650s], a core model of Particular Baptist covenant theology developed. The covenant of grace was a covenant of sure salvation for all of God's elect. The covenant of circumcision was a covenant of works for Abraham's physical descendants intended to set them apart as the people from whom the promised seed of the woman would be born. The old covenant made salvation known through typology, though the types are distinct from the antitype. When Christ was born, the national covenant of works was aborgated and the new covenant remained alone, the antitype eclipsing the type. From Ritor to Cheare and Steed, the Particular Baptists presented a united but diversely presented covenant theology... For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity. The key difference between these confessions [WCF and 2LBC] is the Particular Baptists' complete avoidance of distinguishing the covenant of grace into two historical administrations. In their "quill-skirmishes," the Particular Baptists had repeatedly rejected the idea that the old covenant was the covenant of grace in a different form. Their typology distinguished the covenant of grace from the earthly national covenants made with Abraham and Moses. The hermeneutics they employed were not those of the continental Anabaptists, but of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by theologians from Ursinus to Cameron. The old covenant was distinct from the covenant of grace, but subservient to the covenant of grace. In their Confession, the Particular Baptists directly tied the covenant of grace to the gospel. Where the gospel is found, there is the covenant of grace. As the gospel was progressively made known throughout history, the covenant of grace was progressively made known throughout history. The covenant of grace should not be flattened into two administrations, oversimplifying its progressive revelation and complex relationship to the old covenant. Rather, the covenant of grace should be seen through "farther steps." Through the gospel, it permeated the entire Old Testament form the promise of the seed of the woman to "the full discovery thereof" in the New Testament. And all the elect were saved by this covenant. The language is carefully broad and specific at the same time. Any of the Particular Baptists' opponents could have subscribed to these statements. Many paedobaptist treatises dedicated great detail to the progressive historical development of the covenant of grace, often subdividing the two administrations of the covenant of grace into narrower periods. The difference between the confessions, then, has less to do with what the Particular Baptists said, and more to do with what they did not say. The model they confessed was not so exclusively or distinctively Baptist that others would disagree with it. But they clearly refused to commit themselves to the more common, and at times unclear, vernacular of substance and administration... Though the Particular Baptists' choice of words clearly reflects their model of the covenant of grace, it is possible that this chapter of the Confession was written broadly, not just to avoid unnecessarily distancing themselves from Presbyterian and Congregational allies, but also to fit varying thought on this subject within the Baptists themselves. This is something they were willing to do. For example, they "purposely omitted the mention of things" relating to open and closed membership. The historical context of the confession lies in the London Baptist' cooperation with the Broadmead Bristol Baptist church, an open-membership church. One of the pastors of the Bristol church, Thomas Hardcastle, whom Kiffen and Coxe had been asked to ordain but could not due to their dealing with Collier, taught a model that differed from most of the Particular Baptists. He contended that the old covenant was the covenant of grace.... but his views were taught privately and not published... Even Cheare, Steed, Hutchinson, and Delaune, despite their confusing language, rejected this idea. The language of 2LCF 7.3 is broad enough that while it confesses a covenantal model that intentionally departs from standard paedobaptist federalism, it seems to do so in a way that allows for some diversity of thought and expression. (147, 326, 187-191, 327)

[Link to this answer]

What Covenant did Christ fulfill?

The law of God (moral law) itself is not a covenant of works. It is the standard for all image bearers (servants), but there is no reward offered for obedience (Luke 17:7-10). Because it is the standard of all image bearers, it is included in every covenant that God makes with men. However, the role the law plays is determined by the particular covenant stipulations. In the Adamic Covenant, God adds the promise of eternal rest for Adam's obedience, turning the law into a covenant of works (Rom 4:4, LBCF 7.1, 19.6). The Old Covenant also contained the moral law, as all covenants do. Its terms were similar to the Adamic Covenant, but different. It gave the law as a covenant of works (Rom 4:4, Lev 18:5) but the reward was temporal life and blessing in Canaan. In this sense, it served as a reminder of the Adamic Covenant of Works, but it was not itself the Adamic Covenant of Works. The New Covenant is the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption in time, and thus it is Christ's Covenant of Works. The moral law was part of this covenant as well. It was given to Christ as a covenant of works, along with the added stipulation of bearing the wrath of his people, with the promised reward being a heavenly inheritance and a people (John 6:38, etc). In that way we can clearly articulate what reward is in question and how typology relates. We can also see that as Christians are still image bearers, we are still obligated to obey the moral law, but not as a covenant of works (LBCF 19.6). When Paul speaks of not being under the law but under grace he is referring to the law as a covenant of works, from which we are freed by the life and death of Christ for us. For more, see Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life [Link to this answer]

Is 1689 Federalism compatible with Theonomy?

No. See 1689 Federalism & Theonomy [Link to this answer]

How do you explain the Olive Tree (Romans 11:16-24)?

Romans 11:16-24 describes a one-time event in redemptive history. Abraham is the root and Israel (not "the visible church") is the tree. At the coming of Christ, the nation of Israel (typical) was cut off for violating the Old Covenant. The branches that remained were the remnant, the true Israel of God/the Church (anti-typical), to which Gentiles were added through faith alone. Abraham had two seeds: carnal and spiritual. They are both represented as Israel, the Olive Tree. For a full explanation, see: The Olive Tree [Link to this answer]

Do you deny the visible/invisible church distinction?

No. Chapter 26 of the 2nd London Baptist Confession states:

1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23;Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 ) 2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 ) 3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name. ( 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12;Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17;Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17 )

The difference in our understanding of the visible church is that we make a distinction between de jure and de facto membership. To understand this distinction, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto? [Link to this answer]

Resources

19