John Owen On The Mosaic Covenant

By Thomas E. Hicks, Jr.

Thomas E. Hicks, Jr., is a Ph.D. candidate in church history at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently serving as the Pastor of Discipleship at Morningview Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL.

Covenant theology has not been uniform in its understanding of the nature of the Mosaic covenant. While today many of the adherents of popular covenant theology speak as though “true” covenant theology interprets the Mosaic covenant to be a gracious administration of the covenant of grace, that way of speaking is historically inaccurate. Part of the reason for this one-sided expression may be covenant theology’s present orientation against dispensationalism. Dispensationalism teaches that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works and that it was only a killing, legal letter. In reaction to the dispensational insistence on identifying the Mosaic covenant with a covenant of works, some contemporary expressions of covenant theology have tended exclusively to assert the gracious character of the Mosaic covenant. In today’s academic literature on covenant theology, John Murray’s writings strongly advocate interpreting the Mosaic covenant exclusively as an administration of the covenant of grace, while Meredith Kline’s work favors the view that formulates the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works at the earthly typological level on the principle of inheritance by works righteousness.[1] The present dispute in covenant theology calls for historians to study what mainstream covenant theology actually affirmed in the past. The historical picture, however, is far from uniform, since covenant theology never really settled the question. The reality is that orthodox covenant theologians affirmed various positions on the nature of the Mosaic covenant.

Ernest Kevan, a scholar of Puritan theology, divided historic covenant theologians into two groups: those who affirmed that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works and those who affirmed that it is a covenant of grace.[2] Sinclair Ferguson, however, in a description of John Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant, took Kevan to task on his assessment and wrote, “In view of this, and some of the statements quoted, Dr. Kevan might have more accurately divided Puritan opinion on the Sinaitic Covenant into three groups.”[3] If Ferguson is right, John Owen is part of a third group, which held that the Mosaic covenant is neither strictly a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace, but a third kind of covenant which embodies principles of both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, but is identical to neither.[4] This study will explore whether Kevan, Ferguson, neither, or each is correct in his characterization of classical covenant theology’s understanding of the Mosaic covenant. We will use Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic covenant as the test case, since Ferguson points to him as an example of a covenant theologian who defies the twofold categorization of Kevan.

The thesis of this article is that Ferguson is correct to identify John Owen’s understanding of the Mosaic covenant as a third kind of covenant, which is neither a republication of the covenant of works nor of the covenant of grace. The article will discuss the relevance of the question and argue that this inquiry is important. It will then describe the views of two historic covenant theologians, one who affirmed that the Mosaic covenant is substantively the covenant of grace, and another who affirmed that it contains the principle of the covenant of works. Next, it will present John Owen’s own theology of the Mosaic covenant and determine whether his view fits into one of the two categories or demands a third category of its own. Finally, some possible objections to the conclusion will be considered and answered.

A clear understanding of the precise nature of the Mosaic covenant is important in the fields of biblical studies, systematic theology, and historical theology. In biblical studies the precise nature of the Mosaic covenant is important because of Paul’s discussion of the “law” and the “works of the law” in the books of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and also in the discussions of the writer to the Hebrews on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. These biblical authors refer to the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant in passages where the Old

Covenant is contrasted with the New Covenant, therefore, answering the question of the nature of the Mosaic covenant will greatly color New Testament interpretation.

In systematic theology, the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is relevant to the doctrine of justification. If the Mosaic Covenant is strictly a covenant of grace and if justification is a verdict rendered on the basis of one’s conformity to the terms of the covenant of grace, then theologians may find sufficient warrant to conclude that it is reasonable to include good works in the verdict of justification. On the other hand, if the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works, and if Paul and others are arguing against justification by obedience to that covenant, then an argument against justification by good works clearly emerges in the scriptural corpus.

In terms of historical theology, understanding the various positions on the Mosaic covenant could help to explain various historical positions on the relationship between the church and the state in England, and some motivations for political action and theory. It may be worth investigating whether certain doctrines of the Mosaic Covenant were held by those who were more prone to seeing a unity of the church and the state, while other views of the Mosaic Covenant were held by those who advocated strong doctrines of separation between the church and the state. Mark Karlberg has written:

Since the time of the Reformation there has been a Reformed consensus that there is an interconnection between OT laws, personal Christian life, and national public policy. But the relationship has not always been clearly defined, which accounts in part for the current intense debate on the role of OT laws in the formation of public policy in America’s pluralistic society.[5]

Careful study of Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant could be useful in clearly delineating his political theory and explaining some of the theological motivation for his political action.

Two Historic Perspectives On The Mosaic Covenant

Some covenant theologians believed that the Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of grace, while others thought of it as being some kind of republication of the covenant of works. The view of one major proponent of each position will be presented in order to provide general descriptions of the two perspectives. They will also function as background against which Owen’s own thought on the matter can be evaluated later. Francis Turretin held that the Mosaic Covenant was the covenant of grace, legally administered, while Herman Witsius believed the Mosaic Covenant was a national covenant that also reiterated the covenant of works.

Following Calvin, Turretin divided the covenant of grace into two gracious economies: the old and the new.[6] According to Turretin, there is no grace-works distinction between the covenants with Abraham and Moses. Instead, the whole OT, after the fall, was a dispensation of grace in which the Mosaic Covenant was simply a gracious continuation, renewal, and expansion of the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace (Deut. 5:2). Turretin said that the giving of the Mosaic Covenant was “terrific, smiting with fear their consciences and by the severity of its threatenings removing them from the sight of God,” but he also affirmed that “it is rightly said that the Decalogue belonged to the covenant of grace.”[7] That is, the substance of the Mosaic Covenant was the covenant of grace, even though its accidental form or administration was somewhat legal. Turretin argued that God administered the Mosaic Covenant in a twofold manner, one according to the external or legal relationship, and the other according to the internal relationship of grace and promise. He wrote, “According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise underlying it.”[8] Thus, for those Israelites who were related to the wholeness of the Mosaic Covenant because they had faithfully grasped and internalized the gracious promise of eternal life repeated in it, the Mosaic Covenant functioned as it was actually given: as a covenant of grace. But for those who did not believe and embrace the gospel extended in the Mosaic Covenant and therefore only related to the external legal requirement, it was a killing letter and functioned to condemn them because of its revelation of the law. However, “this [legal] stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental,” since the substance of the Mosaic Covenant was the covenant of grace and not the covenant of works.[9]

Herman Witsius, on the other hand, affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant was a national covenant made with Israel that also reiterated the principle of the covenant of works.[10] Witsius wrote, “What was [the Mosaic covenant] then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel. . . . This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other.”[11] The Mosaic Covenant was formally a national covenant, but it also promised the reward of eternal life. J. F. Fesko writes, “Witsius believed that God set forth a legal covenant before the nation of Israel, one by which they could earn their salvation through their obedience. Given man’s sinfulness, however, the Mosaic covenant as the republished covenant of works only revealed Israel’s sinfulness.”[12] Witsius wrote:

And first, we observe, that, in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works. For both the very same precepts are inculcated, on which the covenant of works was founded, and which constituted the condition of the covenant; and that sentence is repeated, “which if a man do he shall live in them,” Lev 18:5. . . . And the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deut 27:26.[13]

Elsewhere, Witsius said that the Mosaic Covenant “undoubtedly contained the sanction of the covenant of works.”[14] That is, the Mosaic Covenant itself promised eternal condemnation to those who failed to keep all the words of the law. Thus, according to Witsius, the Mosaic Covenant had the work-for-life principle in it, though it was not formally the covenant of works.

According to Witsius, Israelites were promised both temporal and eternal spiritual blessings, not just from the covenant of grace, but also from the national Mosaic Covenant. Brenton Ferry writes, “[Witsius] explains that the reward for obedience to this national covenant is received in both this life and the next, benefitting both body and soul.”[15] Witsius remarked, “He promises to them not only temporal blessings . . . but also spiritual and eternal, when he says that he will be their God and they his people . . . these words comprise life eternal and the resurrection of the body.”[16]

When contrasting the Old and New Testaments, Witsius did not distinguish between two economies of a single covenant of grace like Turretin (old and new administrations of the covenant of grace); rather, he believed that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant were two different covenants. According to Witsius, when the New Covenant is contrasted with the Mosaic Covenant, “a new better covenant is opposed to that Israelitish covenant, which is not formally the covenant of grace.”[17] By denying that the Mosaic covenant is of the same substance with the covenant of grace, Witsius distinguished his own position from theologians like Calvin and Turretin.[18]

Some representatives of historic Reformed covenant theology affirmed that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, like Turretin, while others affirmed that the Mosaic covenant republishes the covenant of works, like Witsius. The focus of the remainder of this study will be to analyze John Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant and to determine whether Owen affirmed a third option, which denied that the Mosaic Covenant involves the principle of the covenant of grace or the covenant of works.

John Owen’s Doctrine Of The Mosaic Covenant: A Third Perspective?

John Owen was a major figure in the development of Reformed and covenant theology.[19] Like Witsius, Owen explicitly denied that the Mosaic covenant is identical to the covenant of works or the covenant of grace. However, unlike Witsius, the reason for Owen’s denial was that he did not believe that the Mosaic Covenant extended the promise of spiritual or eternal life at all. Owen wrote, “This covenant called, ‘the old covenant,’ was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation to the church, but was made with a particular design, and with respect to particular ends.”[20] Owen repeated that assertion throughout his commentary on Hebrews and in various portions of his other works as well. So, if the Mosaic Covenant did not extend the promise of life, then how did it relate to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace?

Owen said that the Mosaic Covenant did not renew, replace, or abrogate the covenant of works.[21] He believed that to assert that the Mosaic Covenant was “the” or “a” covenant of works would overthrow Paul’s argument in Galatians 3, which teaches that if the Mosaic covenant promised eternal life on the basis of the works of the law, as did the covenant of works, then the gracious promise of life by faith given to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant would be nullified. Paul wrote, “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise, but God gave it to Abraham by a promise” (Gal. 3:17-18). Therefore, Owen said that it is wrong to say that the Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of works “absolutely.”[22]

On the other hand, Owen denied that the Mosaic Covenant is properly considered an administration of the covenant of grace. In fact, he spent several pages in his commentary on Hebrews describing that view, which he readily admits that Calvin and most Reformed divines held, demonstrating his thorough acquaintance with that gracious perspective on the Mosaic Covenant. But then, he spent twice as many pages refuting it. In fact, his chief concern in the Hebrews commentary seems to be not so much to distance himself from the idea that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, though he does that. Instead, he was primarily interested in separating his understanding from Calvin’s view, which taught that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant were simply two administrations of the covenant of grace. First, Owen outlined points of agreement with Calvin: the way of justification is the same under both covenants; the writings of both Testaments contain the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and the Mosaic Covenant reveals and points to Jesus Christ.[23] Second, Owen explained why he did not adhere to Calvin’s viewpoint. Owen argued that if it were a covenant of grace, then Scripture’s contrasts between Mosaic law and the gospel promise in Galatians 3, Romans 3, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 would be nearly unintelligible. This concern to uphold the biblical distinction between the “old” and the “new” is in fact Owen’s main objection to the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is identical to the covenant of grace. The NT makes too much of the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant for them to be satisfactorily explained as merely two administrations of the same covenant. It says that one is a “ministry of condemnation” and the other is a “ministry of righteousness” (2 Cor. 3:9). One is temporary, but the other is permanent (2 Cor. 3:11). One is faulty and obsolete, while the other is enacted on better promises (Heb. 8:6-7, 13). Owen believed that fidelity to the text of Scripture and particularly to the whole argument of the book of Hebrews required that the Mosaic Covenant not be identified with the covenant of grace.

Therefore, according to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant must be a “third kind of covenant,” which neither promises eternal life in the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. Owen’s view of the Mosaic Covenant as a third kind of covenant grew out of his wrestling with two seemingly contradictory principles. The two apparently contradictory principles that Scripture teaches regarding the Mosaic Covenant are, first, that it cannot be the covenant of works, lest the promise be overthrown (Gal. 3:17-18). But, second and in seeming opposition to this, the NT apparently demands that the Mosaic Covenant contain the work-for-life principle of the covenant of works: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all thing things written in the Book of the Law and do them . . . But the law is not of faith; rather the one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:10-13).

Owen resolves this apparent tension by arguing that the commands, curse and promise of the covenant of works were “revived” in the Mosaic covenant. Regarding the “do this and live” promise of Lev. 18:5, Owen says, “Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived,” and that the Mosaic Covenant “revived the promise of that covenant that of eternal life on perfect obedience.”[24] But by asserting the “revival” of the covenant of works, Owen in no way intended to say that the Mosaic Covenant is identical to the covenant of works, but only that part of the Mosaic Covenant contains a reminder of that covenant which was given to Adam in the garden before the fall. In this sense, Owen said that there is both “renovation,” and “innovation” of the covenant of works.[25] He wrote, “Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed to it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant works, which it revived, saying, ‘Do this and live.’”[26] He then concluded, “Therefore it follows also, that it was not a new covenant of works established in the place of the old, for the absolute rule of faith and obedience to the whole church; for then would it have abrogated and taken away that covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not.”[27] This explains the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the covenant of works and also explains the NT’s citation of the “do this and live” promise contained in the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant contained a reminder of the covenant of works, announcing the terms that belonged not to itself, but to the original covenant of works with Adam.

But, the Mosaic Covenant also stood in a special relationship to the covenant of grace. According to Owen, the covenant of grace was initiated and established in the protoevanglium immediately after the fall in God’s promise of the Seed who would crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3). The Abrahamic Covenant, revealed in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, was this same covenant of grace in which the stipulations and blessings were expanded and clarified. Israelites who were living under the Mosaic Covenant were justified and saved by the covenant of grace which had already been established. The Mosaic Covenant functioned as a covenantal overlay, a covenant layer that God placed on top of the already existing covenant of grace. Ferguson correctly notes, “It was under the covenant of grace that Old Testament saints were justified, and not by virtue of the old covenant (Sinai) in which the substance of the covenant of works was renewed.”[28] But, even though the Mosaic Covenant did not provide the means of salvation, it still clearly pointed to the one way of salvation by means of the covenant of grace. It both revealed and repeated the promises which God had already made in earlier times, and anticipated the ultimate consummation of those promises in the first and second comings of Christ. Owen said that the Mosaic Covenant pointed to the covenant of grace:

by representing the way and means of the accomplishment of the promise, and of that on what all the efficacy of it to the justification and salvation of sinners does depend. . . . To that end it was so far from disannulling the promise or diverting the minds of the people of God from it, that by all means it established and led to it.[29]

Thus, the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant was a Christocentric depiction of the covenant of grace, and it anticipated the New Covenant which was yet to come.[30]

The question then becomes what the Mosaic Covenant actually is. If it is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but merely reminds those under its administration of the terms, stipulations, and ends of those covenants, preaching their terms so to speak, but not embodying them, then the Mosaic covenant itself must still be defined. Owen wrote, “That if it did neither abrogate the first covenant of works, and come in the room of it, nor disannul the promise made to Abraham, then to what end did it serve, or what benefit did the church receive by that means?”[31]

Like Witsius, Owen concluded that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant uniquely designed for national Israel.[32] It was a national covenant, which God made to be subservient to the promises he made to Abraham 450 years earlier. A national covenant was necessary in order for it to be clear to subsequent generations that in the fullness of time, God kept his promise by sending Jesus the Messiah through the line and seed of Abraham, who God promised would have a multitude of children and be a blessing to the nations. Owen says that the Abrahamic promise rendered it necessary “that [Israel] should have a certain abiding place or country, which they might freely inhabit, distinct from other nations, and under a rule or scepter of their own.”[33] Also, the mark of Yahweh had to remain on them and they had to be required to trust and obey him for blessings and curses, lest the Christological reason for their election and existence be obscured to future generations, and God’s integrity as a promise-keeper be called into question. Also, since God chose them to be his special people, God’s own holiness required him to demand their obedience and submission according to a specific and temporally appropriate pattern of worship.[34] Thus, God’s goal in making the Mosaic Covenant with the people of Israel was both eschatological and Christological, but it does not explain the nature of the Mosaic Covenant.

Since the Mosaic Covenant is not about eternal life,[35] it must be an earthly covenant, which is temporary and typical of spiritual things. Owen writes, “there was ordained in it a typical representation,”[36] which was a picture of spiritual things. The Mosaic Covenant required faith, love, and actual acts of obedience, but it contained no gracious enablement for anyone under its administration actually to perform its requirements. It delivered the Israelites out of captivity in the land of Egypt (physical picture), but it did not deliver them from bondage to their sinful natures (spiritual reality); therefore, the Israelites were not capable of keeping the terms of the Mosaic Covenant by virtue of the Mosaic Covenant. Furthermore, what was promised to the Israelites for their faith, love and obedience under the Mosaic Covenant was not eternal life (spiritual reality), but temporal, earthly blessings, including land and physical prosperity (physical picture).[37] Owen helpfully summarized his understanding of the constitution of the Mosaic Covenant:

This covenant, thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the covenant of the first covenant of works; and in that respect, as the apostle speaks, was the ‘ministry of condemnation,’ . . . And on the other hand, it directed also to the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation to all that did believe. But as to what it had of its own, it was confined to things temporal. Believers were saved under it but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.[38]

Contrary to Kevan, the views of Reformed covenant theologians on the Mosaic Covenant were not limited to “grace” or “works.” Owen taught that the Mosaic Covenant is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but a third kind of national covenant of promise, which God specially designed to keep the people of Israel together as a nation to be a visible display of God’s promise-keeping by eventually bringing Jesus Christ from that nation, and to be a typical, earthly picture of both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.[39] Therefore, Ferguson’s assertion that Reformed covenant theologians should be divided into three groups, rather than two, is correct.

Objections Proposed And Answered

Three possible counter arguments could be made against the above thesis. One might argue that Owen really believed that the Mosaic Covenant was really (1) a covenant of works or (2) a covenant of grace, which would mean that Kevan, rather than Ferguson, may be right about traditional Reformed positions on the covenant. Also, one might argue that (3) both Kevan and Ferguson are correct, but in different ways. If any of these objections is substantive, the above thesis would be proven incorrect. All three counter-arguments will be presented, and then all three will be answered.

First, one might argue that since on Owen’s view, the Mosaic Covenant contains a revival of the terms of the covenant of works, it must itself be a covenant of works. This is in fact the view of biographer Peter Toon who argued that on Owen’s view, the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the covenant of works. He said, “Further [Owen believed the Mosaic Covenant] revived the sanction, curse and sentence of death for transgressors and the promise of eternal life as a reward for perfect obedience. So the Mosaic Covenant was related in essence to the original covenant of works.”[40] Owen’s insistence on the revival of the terms of the covenant of works in the Mosaic Covenant could easily be construed as making the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of works. How can a covenant contain the stipulations, sanctions, and promises of a covenant without actually being that covenant? Owen’s own denial that the Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of works is inconsistent with his own affirmation that the covenant of works is revived in the Mosaic Covenant.

Second, one might argue that Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the covenant of grace because like the covenant of grace, it commands its members to trust the coming redeemer, and manifests the grace and mercy of God both in the gracious establishment of the covenant and in its merciful sacrificial system. The Mosaic Covenant itself does not require strict and perfect obedience for blessing like the covenant of works, but only a pattern of covenant faithfulness. Wong thinks that Owen believed the Mosaic Covenant was essentially the covenant of grace, though the legal principle of the covenant of works was intermixed as a superadded element. He writes, “According to Owen . . . from Abrahamic covenant to Mosaic covenant, they are in essence the covenant of grace.”[41]

If either Toon or Wong is correct, then the thesis of this article fails, since Kevan would be correct about Owen, rather than Ferguson.

Third, one might argue that both Ferguson and Kevan are correct because they are talking about two different things. Kevan is saying that Reformed covenant theologians thought that the Mosaic Covenant is either gracious or legal, generally speaking, while Ferguson is saying that their views on the Mosaic Covenant are not limited to identifying it with the covenant of grace or the covenant of works. Kevan’s statement uses the indefinite article “a” rather than the definite article “the” when referring to the Mosaic Covenant as “a covenant of works or a covenant of grace.” Kevan wrote that some “regarded the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works, and [others] regarded it as a Covenant of Grace.”[42] Given the wording of the statement, one might argue that while on Owen’s view the national, Mosaic Covenant was not “the covenant of grace,” properly speaking, it was nevertheless “a national covenant of grace” because God graciously initiated it and caused it to realize its ultimately gracious purpose: that Christ came from that nation to be the redeemer of the world.

In response to the first two counter arguments, two things need to be said. First, and most importantly, John Owen himself denied that the Mosaic Covenant is identical to the covenant of works or the covenant of grace. Some might object that Owen’s system was inconsistent, but the fact remains that if Owen is taken on his own terms, then the Mosaic Covenant cannot be identified with either the covenant of works or the covenant of grace. Second, Owen positively offered a third alternative, which he carefully constructed. Owen’s third alternative is that the Mosaic Covenant did not promise eternal life, but was a national covenant, which merely made earthly, typical and temporal promises. It was a mere picture of heavenly things. Since both the covenant of grace and the covenant of works actually promise eternal life on some condition, Owen’s understanding of the Mosaic Covenant cannot properly be called either. Therefore, the first two counter arguments fail.

The third counter argument is interesting, but Owen himself never refers to the national, Mosaic Covenant as “a national covenant of grace.” In fact, he seems very much to want to distance himself from specifically identifying it as exclusively gracious or legal. Instead, it was national, typical, and subservient to God’s whole design, preaching the terms of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Kevan himself intended such a nuanced understanding of his words, since he intended to argue that all Reformed covenant theologians either affirm that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works or a covenant of grace. The reality is that the vast majority did affirm that the Mosaic Covenant was either the covenant of works republished or the covenant of grace administered to national Israel; therefore, the article is not likely significant.

Conclusion

A careful reading of John Owen reveals that he understood the Mosaic Covenant to be neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but a third kind of national covenant of promise. At the same time, the Mosaic Covenant revived and republished the terms of the covenant of works and revealed the stipulations and ends of the covenant of grace by prescribing faithfulness and anticipating the New Covenant in various types and shadows. The Mosaic Covenant was specially made to keep the people of Israel together as a nation, preventing their total destruction, until Christ came through them, fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham. Though counter arguments can be offered, none of them are ultimately successful in overthrowing the thesis that Sinclair Ferguson, rather than Ernest Kevan, is correct in asserting that the opinion of Reformed covenant theology on the Mosaic Covenant is best divided into three groups, rather than two.

Notes

1. Peter Golding, Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2004), 164-170. John Murray flatly rejected the idea that the Mosaic covenant was a “repetition of the so-called covenant of works,” calling that view a “grave misconception” and “an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant.” John Murray, “The Adamic Administration,” in Collected Writings, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:50. Meredith Kline on the other hand wrote, “The old (Mosaic) covenant order, though in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant of promise . . . was nevertheless itself governed by a principle of works.” Meredith G Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Oakland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), 318.
2. Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1993), 113-114.
3. Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987), 28.
4. Ibid., 29.
5. Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 59.
6. William Ames and John Calvin are two more examples of historic Reformed theologians who affirmed the Mosaic Covenant was substantively a covenant of grace rather than a covenant of works. See William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 202-205; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.7-11 (340-449); and David L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 37-44.
7. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 2:226.
8. Ibid., 2:227.
9. Ibid.
10. Other classic Reformed theologians affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant republished the covenant of works. For example, the work of Edward Fisher (though there is some dispute about whether or not that is his real name) was influential in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Britain during the Neonomian and Marrow controversies. He wrote a little manual of covenant theology which taught a clear law-gospel distinction and interpreted the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of works. See Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: In Two Parts (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival, 1991) 68-83.
11. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man (Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), 2:186.
12. J. V. Fesko, “Calvin and Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant” in The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, ed. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Philipsburg: P&R, 2009), 37.
13. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, 182.
14. Ibid., 359.
15. Brenton C. Ferry, “Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy” in The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, 102.
16. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, 182.
17. Ibid., 336.
18. Though the preceding discussion emphasized the discontinuities between Turretin and Witsius, there is also significant continuity between them, since both recognized a distinctive works principle operating in the Mosaic Covenant. For similar continuity between Calvin and Witsius, see J. V. Fesko, “Calvin and Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant,” in The Law is Not of Faith, 25-43.
19. For more information on John Owen, see William Barker, Puritan Profiles (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Mentor, 1999), 295-300; Errol Hulse, Who are the Puritans? (Auburn: Evangelical Press, 2000), 97-99; Robert W. Oliver, ed., John Owen: The Man and his Theology (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002), 1-190; Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1971), 1-178; Carl Trueman, The Claims of Truth (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001), 1-281.
20. Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 188.
21. Michael William Bobick, “Owen’s Razor: The Role of Ramist Logic in the Covenant Theology of John Owen (1616-1683)” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1996), 57-60.
22. John Owen, The Works of John Owen: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 19 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 389.
23. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 181.
24. Ibid., 189.
25. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol 6 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 1965), 471.
26. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 189.
27. Ibid.
28. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life¸ 30. Emphasis is original.
29. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 190.
30. This Christocentric perspective is characteristic of Owen’s entire theological methodology and covenantal framework. See Carl. R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 60-64.
31. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 191.
32. For a helpful orientation on John Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant see David Wai-Sing Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 203-223.
33. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 194.
34. Ibid., 194-197. See also Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 173-174.
35. According to Richard C. Barcellos, “Owen did not view the Old Covenant as a covenant of works in itself. He viewed it as containing a renewal of the original covenant of works imposed upon Adam in the Garden of Eden . . . Moreover, Owen did not teach that Christ ‘kept the Old Covenant for us and earned every blessing it promised.’ On the contrary, Owen taught that obedience or disobedience to the Old Covenant in itself neither eternally saved nor eternally condemned anyone and that its promises were temporal and only for Israel while the Old Covenant lasted. According to Owen, what Christ kept for us was the original Adamic covenant of works, not the Old covenant as an end in itself.” Richard C. Barcellos, “John Owen and New Covenant Theology,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review, 1 (July 2004): 13-14.
36. Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 198.
37. Ibid., 178.
38. Ibid., 197-198.
39. For a nearly identical Puritan perspective, see Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 99.
40. Toon, God’s Statesman, 170. Emphasis mine.
41. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 206-204. Emphasis mine.
42. Kevan, The Grace of Law, 113-114. Emphasis mine.