A Comparison Between The Old Covenant And The New Covenant

By Richard W. Gray

Montclair, New Jersey

JONATHAN Edwards, distinguished as one of the first great preachers and theologians of America, once wrote: “There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ, as the stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ” (Works, New York, 1881, Vol. I, p. 160). These words are just as true today as they were two centuries ago. Therefore a study of the comparison between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in its substance and in its accidents should prove fruitful. It should bring to light many of the similarities and differences of the Old Testament and the New. It should reveal either the underlying unity or the underlying diversity of the Bible. It should give us a comprehensive knowledge of God’s redemptive dealings with man from the Fall in Eden to the Regeneration of all things in the new heavens and the new earth.

In making a comparison between the Old and New Covenants in substance and in accidents, there are two types of error to be noted: the error that the God of the Old Covenant, or Testament, is different from the God of the New Covenant, or Testament, and the error that God’s dealings with man under the Old Covenant were substantially different from God’s dealings with man under the New Covenant. The former error is held by the Modernists who do not accept the whole of the Bible as the Word of God. The latter is held by the modern dispensationalists who do accept the entire Bible as the Word of God. This article will deal, indirectly at least, with the modern dispensationalism. It is the thesis of this article to demonstrate that the Biblical view is that God’s dealings with man under the Old Covenant were the same as to their substance and different as to their accidents when compared with his dealings with man under the New Covenant.

The terms “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant” are slightly ambiguous in that they suggest two different covenants. They are Scriptural terms, based on Jeremiah 31:31—34. But a careful study of this passage as well as of other passages of Scripture will demonstrate that both are forms of administration of the one Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is that agreement between God the Father and God the Son as the representative of the elect, whereby God the Father promises to give salvation on the basis of the atoning work of God the Son, which salvation is to be received through faith by the elect. The Old Covenant is a term used to refer to the administration of the Covenant of Grace under the Mosaic economy and the New Covenant refers to the administration of the Covenant of Grace under the Christian economy. It is important to remember that there is but one Covenant of Grace which has been progressively revealed in different administrations.

The problem of the relation between the two covenants is one of the most difficult in theology. Such passages of Scripture as, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17), and, “For ye are not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14), certainly on the surface seem to set the Old Covenant of the law over against the New Covenant of grace. To overlook the difficulty which the modern dispensationalist solves in his erroneous way is certainly unintelligent. It is to be remembered that even the Reformed solution of this problem is not free from difficulties.

To this problem there are two possible approaches. There is the approach from the point of view of Systematic Theology in the restricted sense of that discipline. This approach is to consider the relation between the two covenants under a discussion of the Covenant of Grace and its various administrations. The point of departure in such an inquiry is the general teaching of Scripture on salvation. Having fixed the general principle relating to God’s dealings in all ages, the passages which bear on the relation of God to his people in the various dispensations are then treated. There is also the approach from the point of view of Biblical Theology. The point of departure in the inquiry from this approach is the exegesis of the texts which bear on God’s dealings with man in the respective periods in their historical order. This has the advantage of adhering more closely to the actual statements of Scripture, rather than relying on deductions made from the general teaching of Scripture. In this approach, however, the general teaching of Scripture is also considered, because true exegesis is not only historical and grammatical, but also theological, that is, it gives attention to the analogy of the faith. The approach of Biblical Theology will be used in this article for the reason that most treatments of this subject extant are to be found in treatises on Systematic Theology, which, as has been pointed out, do not consider in detail the actual statements of Scripture.

In order to understand, in their historical setting, the administrations of the Covenant of Grace by Moses and by Christ, the administrations known as the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, we must know something of the Covenant of Grace as it had been revealed prior to those administrations. In other words, to get the true historical perspective, we must trace the history of the revelation of the Covenant of Grace.

In the Garden of Eden, God entered into the Covenant of Works with the human race through Adam, their representative, promising everlasting life — life which is not only never-ending, but also life in the higher state of immutable holiness and unconditioned blessing — on the basis of perfect obedience during a period of probation. After man sinned, God, by the promise of Genesis 3:15, set in operation the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In that promise, which was uttered in man’s hearing in the form of a curse on Satan, God said: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. This verse, couched in figurative language, promises the destruction of Satan, who used the serpent as his instrument, and implies the deliverance of those who through sin have fallen under his power and dominion.

In the time of Abraham God made a more complete revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the covenant which he made with Abraham and his seed (Gen. 17:7–10; 26:2–4). The first promise of that covenant was that God, as Jehovah and El Shaddai (his redemptive names), would bless them and be their God (Gen. 17:1, 7; 26:2, 3). The phrase, “To be a God unto thee”, does not have any redemptive significance to a large number of people and to many students of the Bible because it is customary to speak of God as one who is over all and who is the God of every one. This is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. It is true that God is over all, and that everyone has a duty to him because he is the creator of all men. But this much was understood when God used this language with Abraham, promising to be, in a special way, his God. The other aspect of the truth of this matter lies in the special significance of the phrase, “To be a God unto thee”. It is a promise of the intimate relationship of friendship, and it is made by God under the redemptive names, Jehovah and El Shaddai. Such an intimate relationship as friendship with God is possible only if the barrier of sin is removed. Hence this promise, to have any meaning at all, must presuppose the removal of the barrier of sin by a process of redemption. It is, therefore, a promise of reconciliation with God, or, to put it differently, of the restoration of sinful man to fellowship with God. This reconciliation had already been promised when God said to Adam that he who had become the friend of Satan and the enemy of God would become the enemy of Satan, and by implication, the friend of God, through the intervention of God who would eventually destroy Satan.

The second promise of the covenant made with Abraham was that Abraham and his seed were to become the channel of universal blessing. This promise was expressed in the words, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). This promise was later called “the gospel” by Paul (Gal. 3:8) because, as Peter points out, it was the promise of salvation through Christ (Acts 3:25, 26). Paul also demonstrates that the promise of the seed of Abraham which would bring blessings to all nations, was fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16), and we may quite legitimately infer that the promise of the seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent’s head was also fulfilled in Christ.

The other two promises made to Abraham — the promise of the land and the promise of a numerous seed — subserve the first two. The numerous seed provided a people who from generation to generation would constitute the kingdom of God and pass on the hope of the Messiah, as contained in the promises of the Covenant of Grace. The land was given to isolate them from the rest of the world that they might not be infected by heathen idolatry with all of its profane complications. Some deny that these promises belong to the essence of the Covenant of Grace. Such say they are just promises relating to the Abrahamic dispensation. But a strong case can be made out for the position that they belong to the Covenant of Grace. The numerous seed promised is a symbol of the great host which was to be included in the Kingdom of God as visualized by the Covenant of Grace. Did not Paul say that believers are the true seed of Abraham, whether they be Jews or Gentiles (Rom. 4:16, 17; Gal. 3:7, 16)? The land of promise was a symbol under which the “heaven” of a renovated earth was promised in the Covenant of Grace. A careful exegesis of Hebrews 11:8–10, 13–16, and Romans 4:13 demonstrates the validity of this contention.

Even if one should disagree with the interpretation of the latter two promises given to Abraham, it is clear that God entered into a covenant promising that he and his seed would be a saved company who could claim Jehovah as their God and that this company would be the one through which would come the seed who would crush Satan’s head and bring final deliverance.

However, to participate in the blessings vouchsafed in these promises, faith was necessary. Hence, faith is the condition of the covenant in the sense that it is the instrument through which the members lay hold upon the promises (Gen. 15:6). Such faith was, of course, possible only through the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, as was signified in the sign of the covenant, circumcision. Circumcision symbolized the truth that the cutting away of the impurity of the heart was necessary if one was to partake of the benefits of the covenant (Gen. 17:11; Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26). Such faith also was the kind of faith which issued in obedience and a godly life (Gen. 17:1; 22:16, 18; 26:5, Jas. 2:21–23).

This emphasis on the necessity of a faith produced by the Holy Spirit, if one is to partake of the blessings of the Covenant of Grace, is only another way of stating that the seed of Abraham which actually partook of the blessings of the Covenant of Grace was the spiritual seed (Rom. 9:6–12), a seed begotten by the Spirit.

This effort to demonstrate that the Abrahamic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace has been made because the modern dispensationalist merely pays lip service to this concept. He will agree that it is a covenant of grace, but not an administration of the Covenant of Grace; that is, he says God was gracious unto man in making certain unconditional promises, but he does not emphasize the fact that those promises were promises of salvation by grace.

Before going on to show the relation of the Old and New Covenants to the Abrahamic, it is necessary to point out that this covenant with Abraham has never been annulled. It is still in force, having continued right through the Mosaic dispensation. This is the clear teaching of Galatians 3:15–17: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. .. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it would make the promise of none effect.”

Since it is apparent that the Mosaic administration of the Covenant of Grace did not abrogate the administration of the Covenant to Abraham, what was the relationship between these two administrations? Paul himself raises this question when he says in the same passage: “Wherefore then serveth the law?” (Gal. 3:19). He answers: “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). In a word, then, the Old Covenant, more accurately denned as the Mosaic administration of the Covenant of Grace, was added to the Abrahamic administration of the Covenant. This supplement was added for a reason: “Because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made”. The Abrahamic administration was not sufficient to restrain the people from departing from God — the terrible apostasy in Egypt occurred in spite of the covenant. God could not give the people the blessings he promised to Abraham if they were going to persist in their wickedness and thus not fulfil the condition of faith. So, because of the people’s proneness to sin, the law, with its requirements of obedience and its terrible sanctions for disobedience, was added as a supplement to make it possible for them to continue to fulfil that condition. By means of its system of sacrifice it further provided forgiveness of sins and fellowship with God for the members of the covenant who incurred God’s displeasure by sinning.

Turning now to the actual words which describe the administration of the covenant by Moses, we find that after the people of Israel came from Egypt by way of the mighty exodus through the Red Sea to Mount Sinai, God said to them: “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exod. 19:4–6). Then followed the giving of the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.

“Ye shall be a peculiar treasure”—a people of peculiar value, a cherished possession —”above all people: for all the earth is mine”. These words express the unique relationship Israel enjoyed with God. They are just another way of stating the promise of the covenant given to Abraham. This promise was also reiterated in the prologue to the decalogue: “I am the Lord thy God”. The intimate relationship described in these words is exhibited under two figures in the Old Testament. The first figure is that of father and son. At Sinai, God covenanted to adopt Israel as his son and give him the love and protection of a father. (Deut. 14:1, 2; Exod. 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Rom. 9:4). The second figure is that of husband and wife. At Sinai God covenanted to make Israel his wife, and to give to her the love and protection of a husband (Jer. 31:32; 3:20). Such an intimate relationship was enjoyed by no other nation. The basis for it was pure grace.

“Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” The numerous seed promised to Abraham had arrived. They are about to become a kingdom — a church, and a nation — a state. In formally organizing his cherished people into a church-state, God tells them what kind of a church-state they must be. He gives them the laws of the new order in Israel.

The fundamental law, that is, the constitution of the church-state, was the decalogue, the ten commandments. The first table of the decalogue sets forth the permanent principles governing man’s relation to God; the second table sets forth the permanent principles governing man’s relation to his fellowman. The subordinate law, the by-laws, are merely an application of the constitution to the specific conditions and circumstances of Israel. Of this there are two divisions: the religious or ceremonial law, based upon the first table of the decalogue; and the civil law, based upon the second table. The civil law, setting forth in detail the relationship of man to man, organized Israel, the holy nation, into a theocracy with Jehovah as king. The ceremonial law, setting forth in detail the relationship of man to God, provided for the fellowship of Israel, the kingdom of priests, with God. This had three divisions: the law concerning the tabernacle, the residence of Israel’s God and king; the law concerning the priesthood, which provided for the approach of Israel to her God and king through the divinely-appointed mediators; and the law concerning the sacrifice, which provided the basis of Israel’s relation to her God and king, the removal of guilt by the shedding of the blood of a substitute.

The next administration of the Covenant of Grace after Moses was that made by Christ. In Hebrews 8:6, Christ is described as having a more excellent ministry than Moses because “he is the mediator of a better covenant”. The better covenant, according to the divine writer, was the one prophesied through Jeremiah, commonly called the “New Covenant”.

For the articles of the New Covenant we must turn to Jeremiah 31. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:31–34).

The first thing to note is that these words describe a covenant which was to replace the covenant made with Moses: the New Covenant replaces the covenant made with Moses, it does not replace the covenant made with Abraham. This is clearly indicated by the author of Hebrews when he comments on the words just referred to: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). Thus, the administration of the Covenant of Grace, mediated by Moses was replaced by the administration of the Covenant of Grace, mediated by Christ through his offices of prophet, priest, and king. We have seen that the promise of the Covenant of Grace, I will be thy God, and ye shall be my people, was reiterated in the Mosaic administration with the words: “ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. .. a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation”. In order to bring this promise to realization in the lives of Israel, the law was given. It will be seen that this basic promise of the Covenant of Grace was reiterated in the Christian administration. In order to bring this promise to realization in the lives of those with whom the New Covenant is made, the revelation brought by Christ as prophet and the redemption wrought and applied by Christ as priest and as king, was manifested. Thus, the law, which was given by Moses, was replaced by the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). However, it must be emphatically declared that the moral law, which God originally inscibed upon the heart of man (Rom. 2:14, 15) and which was summarized on the tables of stone which were part of the Old Covenant, was reiterated in the revelation of the truth of Christ the prophet (Matt. 22:36–40). However, the ceremonial law was done away because it was fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 9), and the civil law was abolished because Israel as a nation ceased to be the divinely-chosen channel of the Covenant of Grace. With this explanation, the words paraphrased from John 1:17 are reconciled with the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”. By his doctrine, Christ revealed the inner meaning of the moral law; by his life, he fulfilled the demands of the moral law; by his death, he fulfilled the types and symbols of the ceremonial law; by his resurrection and ascension he causes the moral law to be fulfilled in the lives of members of the covenant (Rom. 8:3, 4).

A careful exegesis of the articles of the New Covenant as found in Jeremiah 31 and quoted and commented upon in Hebrews 8 and 9 will reveal in more detail the similarities and differences between the two covenants.

The four articles of the New Covenant listed in this passage are: (1) “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”; (2) “I will be their God, and they shall be my people”; (3) “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord”; (4) “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”.

The central article or promise is the second: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people”. This is the heart of the Covenant of Grace, and this promise was reiterated in every administration of it. In the administration to Adam it is implied in Genesis 3:15 where God reveals that he will put enmity between Satan and his new-found friend, man. This enmity with Satan implies friendship with God. In the administration to Abraham, he said: I will be “a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). In the administration by Moses, he said: “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people” (Exod. 19:5), and “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2). And, in the administration by Christ, it is repeated in the words of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–12).

Under the Mosaic dispensation, God sought to realize this intimate relation with his people through the law of the tabernacle, which provided for his dwelling in the midst of Israel, and the laws of the priesthood and of the sacrifice, which provided for their approach unto him. To the people at Sinai, he said: “I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:11, 12). Under the Christian dispensation God sought to realize it by his manifestation in the God-man, Jesus Christ, as it is stated in John 1:14: “And the Word (which was God) became flesh and tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us”, and by his presence in his children individually and collectively in the Holy Spirit, as it is stated in II Corinthians 6:16: “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”.

The question may well be asked: If this promise is part of both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, where is the contrast implied by the words which introduce this revelation of the New Covenant, namely, “I will make a new covenant ... not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt”? The words used here seem to express an absolute contrast, but, in view of the Scripture we have just examined, the contrast cannot be absolute. The contrast here is relative. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is one of form and not of essence. The essence of both covenants lies in the spiritual blessings of salvation promised by God to his people. Under the Old Covenant these spiritual blessings were conveyed largely by the concrete forms of religion in the ceremonial law; abstract teaching was at a minimum. Under the New Covenant, these spiritual blessings are conveyed largely by the abstract teachings of religion; concrete forms, such as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are at a minimum. It can be understood why the prophet drew the contrast in such sharp lines when it is remembered that the great heresy which the prophets combatted was formalism — strict adherence to the forms of religion unaccompanied by an appreciation of the spirit or essence of religion.

In tracing this promise of the second article through the various administrations, we see a higher and fuller expression of this great promise in each succeeding dispensation. Before man sinned, the Scripture says, God walked and talked with man. He was truly his God. After he sinned that fellowship and communion were cut off. The restoration of that original state was provided for in the Covenant of Grace. In the administration from Adam to Abraham, the new relationship was stated by God in a negative rather than positive fashion. The restoration was promised in the words “enmity with Satan”, which implies friendship with God. In the administration from Abraham to Moses, God was still in heaven, at a distance. But occasionally he talked to man and once he made a visit to man, namely, the visit with the two angels to Abraham when he disclosed the impending judgment on Sodom (Gen. 18). In the administration from Moses to Christ, he manifested himself under the symbol of a cloud in the tabernacle and in the temple, thus taking up his abode with man in this symbolic way (Exod. 40:38; I Kings 8:11). In the Christian administration, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, took up his abode on earth for a time. Since Christ ascended, God has taken up his abode on earth by his Spirit in Christians and in the Christian church. In his abode on earth in the person of Christ, the humiliation of Christ veiled his glory. Similarly, in his abode in the hearts of Christians his glory does not have a full manifestation. It remains, therefore, for the future to bring the highest and fullest fulfilment of this glorious promise of the New Covenant: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. .. and I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God” (Rev. 21:1–3).

There are two obstacles which stand in the way of the realization of this promise of the Covenant of Grace. They are really two aspects of the same thing. It is sin in its aspects of guilt and pollution which bars man from fellowship with God. Man is under the guilt of sin and he is contaminated by the pollution of sin.

The remaining articles deal with this two-fold obstacle to the fulfilment of article two in Jeremiah’s statement of the New Covenant. The first and third provide for salvation on the subjective side — or the removal of the pollution; the fourth provides for salvation on the objective side — or the removal of the guilt.

The first article, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”, refers to regeneration, salvation on the subjective side. The “inward parts” are the seat of life — the place where sits the controlling principle of one’s ethical and religious life. The law is to reign there in the members of the New Covenant. The “heart” is the seat of emotional life. The law will reign in the affections of the members of the New Covenant. A parallel passage in Ezekiel reveals that this work of regeneration, wherein the will of God is made to reign in a man’s life and affections, is to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” (Ezek. 36:26, 27).

The question asked in reference to the article we have already considered arises again: In view of the contrast implied in the words which introduce this prophecy, are we to conclude that there was no Spirit-wrought regeneration under the Old Covenant? The modern dispensationalists, many of them at least, answer: There was not. To cite an example, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, the West Point of modern dispensationalism, plainly declares that there was no provision for regeneration under the Old Covenant in Judaism when he says: “The only parallel in Judaism of the present salvation of an unregenerate person is the fact that the Jew was physically born into his covenant relations” (“Dispensationalism”, Bibliotheca Sacra, December, 1936, p. 419). In support of their answer modern dispensationalists refer to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and quote John’s prediction concerning it: “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). They also quote II Corinthians 3:6–8: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious. .. how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?”

Are we forced by these verses to the conclusion that under the Mosaic dispensation the Holy Spirit did not operate in the lives of men to regenerate them and thus cause them to love God and to do his will as expressed in the law? Or, was the outward giving of the law attended by the inward, regenerating work of the Spirit, enabling man to keep the law? Are we driven to Chafer’s conclusion that spiritual birth into the kingdom of God under the New Covenant finds its only parallel in the Old Covenant in physical birth into the covenant relation? Or, was natural birth into the covenant relation in a legal sense in the Mosaic dispensation accompanied in some cases, at least, by spiritual birth into the covenant relation in a vital sense?

The answer is based upon several basic truths of the Scripture. The first of these is that man is a sinner, and, as such, he is not only guilty before God, but also corrupt in his nature, and, therefore, he is unfit for God’s kingdom. This is taught not only under the New Covenant by Paul when he says, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, but it was also taught by Jeremiah under the old covenant when he wrote, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”. The second truth is that, apart from a change of heart, man cannot enter that company of redeemed sinners known as the kingdom of God. Not only did Jesus teach this in his words to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”, but Moses also taught it when he recorded that longing of God, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut. 5:29). The third truth is that this change of heart cannot be wrought by human effort but must be effected by the supernatural work of God. Speaking of those who manifest a change of heart by believing in Christ, John wrote: “Which were born, not of blood, ..... but of God” (John 1:13). Under the Old Covenant David, conscious that his wicked heart had to be changed, cried out: “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Ps. 51:10). Moses, likewise, said: “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart ... to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live” (Deut. 30:6). An admirable summary of these basic Biblical truths which lie at the foundation of God’s plan of salvation can be found in B. B. Warfield’s article, “On the Biblical Notion of Renewal”: “It is uniformly taught in Scripture that by his sin man has not merely incurred the divine condemnation but also corrupted his own heart; that sin, in other words, is not merely guilt but depravity: and that there is needed for man’s recovery from sin, therefore, not merely atonement but renewal; that salvation, that is to say, consists not merely in pardon but in purification. Great as is the stress laid in the Scriptures on the forgiveness of sins as the root of salvation, no less stress is laid throughout the Scriptures on the cleansing of the heart as the fruit of salvation. Nowhere is the sinner permitted to rest satisfied with pardon as the end of salvation; everywhere he is made poignantly to feel that salvation is realized only in a clean heart and a right spirit. .. The agent by whom the cleansing of the heart is effected is in the Old Testament uniformly represented as God Himself, or, rarely, more specifically as the Spirit of God, which is the Old Testament name for God in His effective activity” (Biblical Doctrines, pp. 440, 444).

Psalm 19 reveals that the Holy Spirit must have worked in connection with the preaching of the words of the law in somewhat the same way he attends the preaching of the words of the gospel. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes .... More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb” (vss. 7, 8, 10). How but by the Holy Spirit could the Psalmist cry out: “I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word ... O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:16, 97)?

That the Holy Spirit wrought regeneration in the lives of men under the Old Covenant is also taught in the meaning of one of the sacraments of the Old Covenant, circumcision. As baptism under the New Covenant is a symbol of the “washing of regeneration”, circumcision under the Old was a symbol of the cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, the pollution which kept man from doing God’s will (Deut. 10:16). Moses said to the people: “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live” (Deut. 30:6). Their hearts needed to be circumcised if they were to love God and live.

Jesus also testified to this when he spoke of the future to some Pharisees who were circumcised in flesh, but not in heart, in these words: “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets (they lived in the Mosaic dispensation), in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out” (Luke 13:28). Since he said that the prophets who lived in the Mosaic dispensation were in the kingdom of God, and, since he also taught that men could not enter the kingdom of God except through the new birth (John 3:6), it follows that the prophets referred to by Jesus must have been regenerated under the Mosaic administration of the Covenant.

One final consideration in reference to this important question is the relation between this article providing for the writing of God’s law on the hearts of his people and the central promise of the Covenant of Grace, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people”. God cannot be sinful man’s God, in all of the pregnant meaning of those words, unless he imparts to man a holiness commensurate with such an intimate relationship. That this relationship between God and his people existed under the Old Covenant, even though on a lower plane than in the new, has already been demonstrated. It follows, then, that the impartation of holiness by the regenerating operation of the Holy Spirit was also a reality in that age. Hengstenberg remarks in this connection: “It is not without meaning, that the words: ‘And I will be their God,’ &c, follow upon: ‘And I will give my Law in their inward parts,’ &c. The Law is the expression of God’s nature; it is only by the Law being written in the heart that man can become a partaker of God’s nature; that His name can be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of God, this sanctification of God’s name, which forms the foundation of: ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ Without this, the relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the True and Holy One. These words express, as Buddeus ...... rightly remarks: ‘That He will impart himself altogether to them.’ But how were it possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural” (Christology of the Old Testament, Eng. Tr., Vol. II, pp. 440f.).

Therefore, under both administrations of the Covenant, the law, which is an expression of the nature of God, was implanted in the seat of man’s life and affections. This is another way of saying that man, under both covenants is renewed in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, for the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:4).

Where then is the contrast which is suggested by the words in Jeremiah 31:31—33, in John 7:39 and in II Corinthians 3:7, 8, 10? Our conclusion again is that it can only be a relative contrast. That which received a meager manifestation under the Old Covenant receives by contrast a fuller and higher manifestation under the New. Again, it awaits its fullest and highest manifestation in the future age when man will have been completely renewed in the image of God. In this connection, Hengstenberg asks: “But how is it to be explained that the contrariety which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the absolute contrariety, — the difference in degree, as a difference in kind? Evidently in the same manner as the phenomenon must be explained elsewhere also, e. g. John 1:17, where it is said that the Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish entirely out of sight” (Christology of the Old Testament, Eng. Tr., Vol. II, p. 439).

The third article of the New Covenant: “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them”, likewise deals with salvation on the subjective side, providing further for man’s fellowship with the one who covenants to be his God. To make man fit for that fellowship with God promised in the second article, the first and third articles, providing for man’s renewal in the image of God, are given. To use the terminology of the Shorter Catechism, the first article promises man’s renewal after the image of God in righteousness and holiness while the third promises man’s renewal after the image of God in knowledge. To put it another way, the first article speaks of giving man a heart to know and love God, the third article speaks of imparting a knowledge of God to this receptive heart. In another place, Jeremiah records the same promise, couched in different words, “And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. . .” (Jer. 24:7).

Jesus, the administrator of the New Covenant, probably had this article in mind when, to the Pharisees who, though rebelling against his teaching, were well instructed by the scribes and teachers of the law, he said: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. .. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44, 45). The drawing of the Father includes being taught of God, which is regeneration on the noetic side. The Pharisees had the external revelation of God but not the internal illumination of God.

Imparting knowledge of that revelation of God is, strictly speaking, the work of the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle Paul testifies: “Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” (I Cor. 2:11, 12). Likewise John testifies of this fact: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. .. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. . .” (I John 2:20, 27).

To this teaching function of the Holy Spirit Jesus referred when he promised the Comforter: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. .” (John 14:26). Jesus here refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. When that great event occurred, the Apostle Peter, in giving the divine explanation of it, laid emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s function of illumination, which is an aspect of regeneration, by quoting from the prophecy of Joel: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh. . .” (Acts 2:16, 17).

This brings us to the important question of the significance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. It is especially important in this investigation because it may help us to understand the contrast between the Old and New Covenants implied in both the first and third articles of the New Covenant which deal with the Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration, the first with regeneration on the volitional and the third with regeneration on the noetic side.

Do Jeremiah, Paul, John, Jesus, Peter, and Joel, in the quotations from them we have just quoted, infer that there was no one under the Old Covenant who possessed a knowledge of God, which knowledge could only come through the Holy Spirit? Obviously this could not be, for there were many under the Old Covenant who did not continue in ignorance to bow the knee to Baal, but who with enlightenment worshipped the true God. What, then, is the contrast suggested by the passages quoted, dealing with the work of the Spirit under the New Covenant?

The answer to this question is to be found in the significance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. That Pentecost did not mark the first manifestation of the Spirit in the world is recognized by practically all students of Scripture. However, the modern dispensationalist contends that under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit operated in creation and providence only, and not as the agent of regeneration in redemption. But in our consideration of article one of the New Covenant we concluded that the Holy Spirit did operate in the hearts of polluted sinners to regenerate them. The significance of Pentecost, therefore, lay not in the first manifestation of the Holy Spirit as the agent of regeneration, as modern dispensationalism would imply, but in the fuller manifestation of the Holy Spirit and the wider diffusion of his operations. In a word, Pentecost put abundance in the place of scarcity, and many in the place of few. After Pentecost, the redemptive operations of the third person of the Trinity became greater in extent — instead of being restricted to Jews, they were manifested among Gentiles also. In the second place, they became greater in scope — there was a larger volume of revelation and a more numerous body of human instruments through which he could work. In the third place, the Spirit’s operations after Pentecost became greater in effectiveness — this naturally resulted from the greater extent and greater scope of his work. This whole question of the relation between the operations of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as raised by Jeremiah in his statement of the first and third articles of the New Covenant is accurately and effectively summarized by B. B. Warfield in his article, “The Spirit of God in the Old Testament”. So important is this subject to our inquiry and so vital to a correct understanding of the Bible, that we conclude this part of our study by quoting Warfield’s summary. “There yet remains an important query which we cannot pass wholly by. We have seen the rich development of the doctrine of the Spirit in the Old Testament. We have seen the testimony the Old Testament bears to the activity of the Spirit of God throughout the old dispensation. What then is meant by calling the new dispensation the dispensation of the Spirit? What does John (vii:39) mean by saying that the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified? What our Lord Himself, when he promised the Comforter, by saying that the Comforter would not come until He went away and sent Him (John xvi:7); and by breathing on His disciples, saying, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit’ (John xx:22)? What did the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost mean, when He came to inaugurate the dispensation of the Spirit? It cannot be meant that the Spirit was not active in the old dispensation. We have already seen that the New Testament writers themselves represent Him to have been active in the old dispensation in all the varieties of activity with which He is active in the new. Such passages seem to have diverse references. Some of them may refer to the specifically miraculous endowments which characterized the apostles and the churches which they founded. Others refer to the world-wide mission of the Spirit, promised, indeed, in the Old Testament, but only now to be realized. But there is a more fundamental idea to be reckoned with still. This is the idea of the preparatory nature of the Old Testament dispensation. The old dispensation was a preparatory one and must be strictly conceived as such. What spiritual blessings came to it were by way of prelibation. They were many and various. The Spirit worked in Providence no less universally then than now. He wrought in the hearts of God’s people not less prevalently then than now. All the good that was in the world was then as now due to Him. All the hope of God’s Church then as now depended on Him. Every grace of the godly life then as now was a fruit of His working. But the object of the whole dispensation was only to prepare for the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh. He kept the remnant safe and pure; but it was primarily only in order that the seed might be preserved. This was the fundamental end of His activity, then. The dispensation of the Spirit, properly so called, did not dawn until the period of preparation was over and the day of outpouring had come. The mustard seed had been preserved through all the ages only by the Spirit’s brooding care. Now it is planted, and it is by His operation that it is growing up into a great tree which shades the whole earth, and to the branches of which all the fowls of heaven come for shelter. It is not that His work is more real in the new dispensation than in the old. It is not merely that it is more universal. It is that it is directed to a different end — that it is no longer for the mere preserving of the seed unto the day of planting, but for the perfecting of the fruitage and the gathering of the harvest. The Church, to use a figure of Isaiah’s, was then like a pent-in stream; it is now like that pent-in stream with the barriers broken down and the Spirit of the Lord driving it. It was He who preserved it in being when it was pent in. It is He who is now driving on its gathered floods till it shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. In one word, that was a day in which the Spirit restrained His power. Now the great day of the Spirit is come” (Biblical Doctrines, pp. 128, 129).

The fourth article of the New Covenant, “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”, takes us from the sphere of subjective salvation to the sphere of objective salvation. The force of the “for” is causal. God will be their God and the Spirit will work in regeneration and teaching because the obstacle sin, in its aspect of guilt, which stands between man and God, will be removed. This is a statement of the forgiveness of sins. No condition is mentioned — forgiveness flows from the free grace of a sovereign God.

Once more we ask the question: Does this mean that there was no forgiveness under the Old Covenant? Or, if there was forgiveness, was it based on works and therefore unobtainable? In a word, is the contrast drawn here a contrast between salvation by works under the Old Covenant and salvation by grace through faith under the New?

The modern dispensationalist teaches that such is the contrast intended because salvation was by works in the Old Covenant. To support this contention, he quotes Moses’ statement regarding the statutes and judgments: “Which if a man do, he shall live in them”. These words which promise life to those who obey the law, were quoted by Jesus to the lawyer who asked how he might inherit eternal life (Luke 10:28). They were also quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5. The modern dispensationalist also quotes Romans 6:14: “For ye are not under the law, but under grace” and John 1:17: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”.

Was forgiveness of sins enjoyed under the Old Covenant? Hear David, the spokesman of the Old Testament saints, answer: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Ps. 32:1, 2). This forgiveness was dramatized in the Passover, the feast of the covenant, and in the sin-offering, the prerequisite of the enjoyment of the mercy the covenant God promised to his people. The picture of the blood of a slaughtered substitute on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant in which resided the two tables of the broken law is also an eloquent testimony to this fact.

Was this forgiveness obtained by works or by faith? The Apostle Paul leaves us in no doubt. His words are: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:5–8). Writing under the Old Covenant, Habakkuk declared, “The just shall live by his faith”. Modern dispensationalism to the contrary, salvation by the works of the law had no place under the Mosaic economy.

The relation of the law of Moses to the religion of salvation by faith, briefly stated, is that the command to keep the law presupposes faith in God who imparts the ability to keep the law; and faith in God involves obedience to the law that commands. To quote again the words of Warfield: “The piety of the OT thus began with faith. And though, when the stage of the law was reached, the emphasis might seem to be thrown rather on the obedience of faith, what has been called ‘faith in action,’ yet the giving of the law does not mark a fundamental change in the religion of Israel, but only a new stage in its orderly development. The law-giving was not a setting aside of the religion of promise, but an incident in its history; and the law given was not a code of jurisprudence for the world’s government, but a body of household ordinances for the regulation of God’s family. It is therefore itself grounded upon the promise, and it grounds the whole religious life of Israel in the grace of the covenant God (Ex 202). It is only because Israel are the children of God, and God has sanctified them unto Himself and chosen them to be a peculiar people unto Him (Dt 141), that He proceeds to frame them by His law, for His especial treasure (Ex 195; cf. Tit 214). Faith, therefore, does not appear as one of the precepts of the law, nor as a virtue superior to its precepts, nor yet as a substitute for keeping them; it rather lies behind the law as its presupposition” (Hastings: A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 832).

The statement of Moses quoted by both Jesus and Paul (Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) must be interpreted in the light of the conclusion that salvation was by faith and not by works under the Old Covenant. These words express the principle of equity that if a man perfectly fulfils the law there will follow the corresponding divine justification and reward. The conjunction of righteousness, justification and life is just as necessary and invariable a principle of the divine government as is the conjunction of sin, condemnation and death. Though grace enters into the provisions of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, yet this principle of equity underlies both, and always holds true quite apart from administrations of grace. It cannot be violated, and if grace is to operate it can only do so on the basis of perfect fulfilment of the law of righteousness. It is only because Christ, as a result of the Covenant of Grace, kept the law perfectly as our substitute and paid entirely the penalty of the law in our stead that we shall enter into heaven. And the law of which we here speak is none other than the law that was originally written on the heart of man and at Mount Sinai was summarily comprehended in the ten precepts written on tables of stone. It is that law that is the unalterable norm by which the word of the Apostle Paul receives meaning, “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5:21).

The words of Paul in Romans 6:14, “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace”, in no way violate this principle. As long as we were under the law of the Covenant of Works, we were enslaved to sin, but when we were freed from that law, we received new life, the life of Christ, which now reigns in us. With Christ reigning in us, sin cannot have dominion over us. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death, and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:2, 4). It is surely obvious that this is the gospel of faith, and the words of Paul are pertinent: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).

The statement of John 1:17, often used to refute the conclusion reached above, remains to be considered. This verse suggests the differences between the two covenants in the objective sphere: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”. Two contrasts are set forth here: between law and grace, between law and truth. The contrast between law and grace is a contrast not of kind but of degree. The Old Covenant emphasized the justice and severity of God; the New Covenant emphasizes the abundance of the grace of God. As it has been pointed out already, law was not excluded in the New Covenant, nor was grace excluded in the Old Covenant. But the grace of the Old Covenant was partial, relative, and typical. With the New Covenant came the fulness of grace anticipated under the Old Covenant. Christ ushered in abundant, absolute, and final grace. That this is John’s meaning is clear from the context: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ... full of grace and truth. .. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace. .. came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:14–17). Under the Old Covenant, the time of partial, relative, and typical grace, there were certain sins for which there was no atonement. The sacrifice of a lamb did not expiate all guilt. This taught the limitation of grace in the ceremonial law. It also awakened a longing for the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of the New Covenant. This longing was an indication that the grace enjoyed was only relative and typical, in comparison with the absolute and final grace to come through Christ. These differences Jeremiah recognized when he penned the fourth article of the New Covenant, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”.

The contrast between law and truth, the second contrast drawn in John 1:17, is not between the law as error and the truth, but between the law of Moses as a shadow of the real, and the truth of Christ as the manifestation of the real itself, a contrast between the symbol of the truth and the truth itself. The children of the Old Covenant sat behind a curtain. On their side of the curtain there was darkness, on the other side light. On the curtain they could see the forms or shadows of real, true things, but they could not see those things themselves. That veil, or curtain, of the Old Covenant has been removed. The children of the New Covenant, sitting in light, are given to see the real, true things themselves. These things existed before, but the children of the Old Covenant saw only their shadows. The ceremonial law with its tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrifice, was a shadow of the atoning work of Christ. This is the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews 10:1 says: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things. . .”. Hebrews 8:5 says: “Who (the priests) minister a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle. For, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the type (pattern) which was shown thee in the mount”. Hebrews 9:23, 24 says: “It was therefore necessary that the copies (patterns) of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are antitypes (figures) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us”. From these verses we see that the law with its ceremonies and ordinances is a shadow (σκιά), a copy (ὑπόδειγμα), and antitype (ἀντίτυπος) of the reality in heaven which is called the true (ὁ ἀληθινός), the heavenly things (τὰ ἐπουράνια), and the type (ὁ τύπος). The things of the New Covenant are the realities of heaven, “the image itself” come to expression in the earth. Thus, the eternal principles of revelation and redemption appeared in the Old Covenant in the form of concrete symbols rather than of abstract truths. Thus, the Old Testament people were taught these principles as adults teach children the abstract truths of mathematics with the use of concrete symbols. For example, instead of saying “two plus two equal four”, they say “two apples plus two apples equal four apples”. Hence, under the Old Covenant, God not only gave the law to Israel as children in reference to discipline, but also in reference to instruction. They were not only taught the right by the instructions of the law, but they were also taught the truth by symbols (shadows) of the law.

This contrast between the Old and New Covenants is drawn in even more detail by the writer to the Hebrews. By specific comparisons he shows the Old Covenant to be inferior to the New. The Old Covenant had “a worldly sanctuary” (9:1), whereas the New has a heavenly sanctuary. The Old Covenant had a tabernacle “made with hands” of “this creation”, while the New has one “not made with hands, that is, not of this creation” (9:11, 24). The Old Covenant had ordinances which cleansed the flesh (9:10, 13) but did not make the offerers perfect pertaining to conscience (10:1). The priest held his office by the law of a carnal commandment and not by the power of an endless life as in the New (7:16ff.). The Old Covenant made nothing perfect, sacrifices had to be repeated year after year; but the New Covenant did make perfect because Christ offered himself once for all in a perfect sacrifice.

This contrast between law and truth is not an absolute contrast. The very mode of contrast reveals the fundamental unity between the shadow of the ceremonial law and the reality of the truth of the atoning work of Christ. This unity is demonstrated by Geerhardus Vos in his article, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke”: “It needs, after what has been said, no lengthy demonstration to show that Hebrews vindicates by this philosophy of history in the most satisfactory manner the identity and continuity of the Old Covenant with the New. Still it is not a work of supererogation to call attention to this. The concrete purpose for which the Epistle was written gave occasion for placing great emphasis on the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. And this undoubtedly is also the proximate purpose in the mind of the author when he formulates that antithesis: there the shadow, here the image itself. But the antithesis would be overdrawn and the author’s mark overshot if we were to interpret this as meaning: the old has only the shadow of the new. As we now know, the author’s real intent is this: the old has only the shadow of heaven, the new has the full reality of heaven. And therefore to do the author full justice the stress should not be laid exclusively on the statement that there is ‘only’ a shadow, but equally on the fact that there ‘is’ a shadow of the true things of religion under the Old Covenant. The word in the prophets cannot take the place of the word in the Son, but it is a word in which God spoke. The sacrifices and lustrations could not do the work for which alone the priestly work of Christ is adequate, but they were in their own sphere faithful adumbrations and true means of grace, through which a real contact with the living God was actually maintained. .. With whatever degree of clearness or dimness they might themselves apprehend the fact, God stood in spiritual relations to the people of Israel, they were not cut off from the fount of life and blessedness. Through the shadows and ceremonies and all the instrumentalities of the flesh, God controlled with a sure and sovereign hand the religious destinies of each member of His covenant people. ......Instructive in this respect is the description given by the author of the dealings of God with the people during the wilderness journey and the people’s attitude during that journey to the rest that has been promised. So far as the form was concerned, this promise has come to them only through the medium of the σάρξ; it was enveloped in the prospect of the inheritance of the land of Canaan that God had held from of old and renewed at the time of their redemption from Egypt. And yet it is clearly the author’s conviction that far deeper and more tremendous issues were decided on that occasion with reference to each of the participants in the history than the mere question, who of them would survive to enter the promised land. Through the shadowy forms, in the midst of which the actors moved, a great drama of belief and unbelief was enacted, the outcome of which was by God reckoned decisive in the eternal sphere. It was not only from the typical but from the everlasting rest that the unbelievers were excluded, when God swore that fearful oath that they should not enter in. And those who believed were then and there given the right of entrance into all that the divine rest did mean and would come to mean in the future. The author is so vividly impressed with this that he does not content himself with comparing this Old Testament method of procedure with the method now pursued under the new dispensation but approaches the comparison from the opposite end. He does not say: they as well as we, but we as well as they have had an evangel preached unto us, whence also he is able to hold up the unbelief of the Israelites as a warning example to the readers of his own day. No more striking proof than this could be afforded of the fact, that he regarded the same spiritual world with the same powers and blessings as having evoked the religious experience of the Old and New Testament alike” (Princeton Theological Review, Vol. XIV, pp. 16ff.).

This two-fold contrast drawn by John between the severity of justice under the Old Covenant and the abundance of grace under the New Covenant, and between the shadowy manifestation of the truth under the Old Covenant and the open manifestation of the truth under the New Covenant is also suggested by Paul in Galatians 4:1, 2: “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father”. The life of a child is characterized by rules, restrictions, commandments; the life of an adult is relatively free from such things. The child must be disciplined by the severity of justice that the adult may appreciate the abundant grace of freedom. Likewise, the child is taught by concrete symbols, those shadows of the truth, while the adult, thus disciplined, is able to look with his mind’s eye on the abstract truth itself. Under the Old Covenant, men were children learning the right by rules and the truth by symbols; under the New Covenant they are adults.

This study began by taking note of what Jonathan Edwards said of the intricacy of this subject. At its conclusion every reader ought to be fully persuaded that the former president of Princeton spoke with forethought. It is hoped that every reader is persuaded of more than that. He should be assured that the Old and New Covenants are the same in substance but different in accidents. He should also rejoice in the marvelous unity of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, he should be convinced that God’s plan of salvation is one, and that it has been progressively revealed from its initiation in the Garden until its consummation in the New Jerusalem. Above all, he should exult in the glorious blessings that are his as a child of the New Covenant. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”