'God Without Passions' by Samuel D. Renihan

God without Passions: The Majesty of God's Unshakeable Perfection,

by Samuel D. Renihan, Broken Wharfe, 2024, 86pp

Throwing in 'I am passionate about...' has become a hackneyed phrase in Uni personal statements, CVs and job interviews. Beyond the worlds of study and work, someone might say, their real passion in life is for hang gliding, foreign travel, or whatever. In other words, we consider 'passion' to be a highly commendable thing. Someone who professed to lack any sort of driving passion would strike us as rather dull. Depressed, even. 

A book with the title God Without Passions might sound rather off-putting, then. Who'd be interested in a remote, passionless deity? But passions weren't always viewed quite so positively. That struck me only recently when reading John Aaron's Thomas Charles of Bala (Banner of Truth Trust, 2022). Charles lived from 1755-1814. In his day passions tended to be viewed with some suspicion. You wouldn't necessarily admit to harbouring them in a job application.  

Chapter 4 of Aaron's  biography details the preacher's pursuit of and eventual marriage to Sally Jones. When a young man Charles was based in Milbourne Port, Somerset and his beloved Sally in Bala, North Wales. Their long distance courtship was largely conducted by letter. In their correspondence Sally played hard to get and was forever second guessing the purity of her own and Charles's motivation for getting married. What if their budding romance were simply a matter of blind passion, she wondered?  In one of his letters Charles acknowledged, "Passions are unsteady things; they are no sooner excited but they subdue again, and cannot be depended upon." (p. 61). 

With that in mind it is little wonder that the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 states, 'God is... a most pure spirit,  invisible, without body, parts, or passions' (Chapter 2:1). The Particular Baptists were not being idiosyncratic on this point. They were simply echoing the theological consensus of Reformed Catholic theology. That consensus is beginning to break down in the world of contemporary Evangelicalism (see here). In fact the doctrine of divine impassibility has become the subject of passionately argued debate. 

Renihan doesn't approach the impassibility of God with theological daggers drawn. His approach is irenic, lucid and pastorally motivated. The writer accepts that Scripture itself often speaks of God in terms of a human seeming emotions. In Genesis it is said that prior to the Flood 'the Lord was sorry that he had made man... and it grieved him to his heart' (Genesis 6:6).  In Ezekiel 6:9 the Lord complains about Israel, 'I have been broken over their whoring heart that has departed from me'. 

What are we to make of such language? For a start it is qualified in the pages of Scripture itself. The Lord's statement, 'I regret I have made Saul king' (1 Samuel 15:11) should not be taken at face value. Why? Because of the words we find in the very same chapter, 'the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.' (1 Samuel 15:29). How may we reconcile these two sayings of the Lord? Well, we need to recognise that in the Scriptures God speaks of himself in accommodated language that is accessible to us, given our human limitations. We often have regrets about decisions we made and opt for a different course of action when things don't work out as we planned. God's plans always work out, including the raising up and removal of Saul. Divine 'regrets', then are merely apparent, signalling the outworking of his eternal decree in this world of time. 

When we confess that God is 'without passions' one thing we are saying is that he is not affected by anything that happens outside of his own being. Nothing can therefore upset God's eternal blessedness or disturb his peace. Human beings are not like that. As Renihan points out, we are creatures of affections and passions. In our affections we are attracted by what we consider good and repelled by what we see as bad. We may be cheered by the kind words of a friend. We may be hurt by the cruel barbs of an enemy. Passions may be defined as twisted affections. They are characterised by undue intensity, or even irrationality. Taken in that sense says Renihan, 'to love is an affection, to lust is a passion; to be angry is an affection, but to rage is a passion'. (p. 21). 

You can see why Sally Jones and Thomas Charles wanted to avoid being motivated to marry merely by blind passion. And clearly, passions so defined cannot be attributed to an eternal and unchanging God. Neither can affections for that matter, for as we have said God is not affected by anything outside of himself. But does that mean when the Bible speaks of the love of God, or the wrath of God, that the Scriptures are merely playing with words? Certainly not. God loves and we love, but while love in humans may be analogous to the  love of God, we don't love as God loves. God is love in the fulness of his infinite, eternal and unchanging being. Similarly with the wrath of God. Unlike us, he isn't provoked into fits of raging fury. Divine anger is the expression of God's unalterable justice when faced with sin.

God's love, justice and faithfulness and so on are not passions or affections, then. They are divine perfections, of which our human equivalents are a shadowy likeness. But in the incarnate Son of God we have one who was both impassible according to his divine nature and who possessed a full range of human feelings, yet without sin. While the Son could not suffer and die as God, he did suffer and die in our place as Man. Because the two natures are united in the person of Christ, we do not say that his human nature was given as a sacrifice for sin. Rather we confess with Paul, 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me' (Galatians 2:20). 

Confessing that God is 'without passions' is of great pastoral worth. If the love of God was an affection like ours, his affection might change if the object of his affections changed. But God does not love as we do, because he was attracted to what was good in us. Neither is his love a flash in the pan passion. God loves us with an everlasting love that flows to us from the depths of his being. He loves us even as sinners, which is why he sent his Son to save us by his blood. He loves us as his children, wayward and fickle though we are. It is precisely because God is impassible that Paul can assure suffering saints, 'nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord'. (Romans 8:39). 

We can therefore trust God to keep his promises and rest in his faithfulness, 

The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:22-23). 

Samuel Renihan has produced a most helpful introduction to the doctrine of divine impassibility. He wrestles with the biblical text sensitively and draws upon the theological wisdom of the past to illuminate his accessible study. The publisher Broken Wharfe is to be congratulated for making this handsome volume available. Now going for only £4.50.  

Deity & Decree, by Samuel D. Renihan

 Published in the UK by Broken Warfe, 2021, 134pp.

Evangelicals rightly demand theological precision and accuracy when it comes to the doctrine of Scripture, or justification by faith alone. Any drift from biblical inerrancy is detected and rejected in short order. Similarly when it comes to including works in justification. 'By faith alone, by grace alone', we insist. The same theological care isn't necessarily displayed when attention turns to the doctrine of God. Some contemporary Evangelical theologians suggest that belief in divine impassibility makes seem God cold and remote. Others have argued that the Son stands in a eternal relationship of submission and authority to the Father. 

Part of the problem is that Evangelicalism contents itself with brief statements of belief, as opposed to elaborate confessions of faith. Compare the Doctrinal Basis of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches with the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689. Point 1 of the FIEC Doctrinal Basis has a 54 word statement on 'God'. What it says is perfectly fine and good. But by way of contrast, the 2LBCF Chapter 2 devotes three paragraphs totalling 408 words to 'Of God and the Trinity'. The older confession self-consciously echoes the creedal heritage of the church and gives expression to what is sometimes called the 'classic doctrine of God', 'The Lord our God is a... most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions'. Renihan wants to recover the older emphasis of the confession. 

If the doctrine of God is 'first theology' and of primary importance, we need to ensure that what we say of God is biblically accurate and informed by the theological reflection of the past. That is where Deity & Decree comes in. With impressive clarity and brevity Renihan gives attention to God's Unity, Triunity and Decree. 

God's Unity: God is self existent, with life in himself. He is uncaused cause of all things. God's attributes such as his omnipotence, holiness and love are not the bits of which his being is composed. God is simple, having no component parts. All that is in God is essential to God, because all that is in God is God. That is why he cannot change. An unchanging God is not susceptible to suffering. There is nothing within the being of the ever blessed God that could cause him to suffer. Suffering cannot be imposed upon him from without, as that would give the created order an advantage over him, compromising his omnipotence and immutability. The impassible God is not cold, or remote, however, for God is love, full of self-generated compassion and mercy towards lost sinners. The move towards attributing suffering to God's being risks compromising the uniqueness of the incarnation of the Son of God. In Christ as man God did what is impossible for him to do as God namely, to suffer and die for sinners. 

God's Trinity: The Bible reveals that in the one God there are three persons, or subsistences: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three persons are equally and fully God, yet the Three are not interchangeable. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is these personal properties alone that distinguish the persons. We may not ascribe an attribute such as authority to the Father and submission to the Son in terms of their eternal relations. The Son has the same power and authority as the Father because he is of the same essence as the Father. But there is an order in the Trinity and the missions of the three persons in the world of time reflect the eternal relations. The Father sent the Son into the world at his incarnation. The Father and Son poured out the Holy Spirit upon the church on the Day of Pentecost. Getting the Trinity right isn't theological hair splitting. As the Second London Baptist Confession states, "which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him." (2:3). 

God's Decree:  The decree is a simple, eternal and sovereign act of God's being. The Almighty's unchangeable decree, however, does not reduce creatures to the status of puppets in his hands. As the confession makes clear, "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree." (3:1). The decree does not make God the author sin, which he willingly permits for his own ends. Neither does it  deprive human beings of  responsibility to God for their actions. God decreed the salvation of his people not because of anything in them, but because of his own free grace given them in Christ before the foundation of the world. Those not elected to salvation are passed by according to God's decree. The cause of the damnation of the wicked is not the divine will per se, but their own sin, which rightly deserves eternal punishment. 

In line with the Reformed Catholic tradition Renihan insists that God's decree is the expression of his will which is a property of the divine being, not the persons of the Trinity. This cuts across the idea proposed by some contemporary Evangelicals that the Son's will was eternally subordinate to that of the Father. The divine will is common to all three persons of the Trinity in the being of God. The Son, as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit was therefore party to the decree of salvation. The Son's submission to the Father in the economy of redemption cannot be read back into the eternal relations of the Trinity. 

Renihan handles the biblical materials underlying God's Unity, Trinity and Decree with insight and care. His treatment of these topics is enriched by the Great Tradition of Christian thought, especially writers of the Reformation and Puritan periods. The author's prose is limpid and precise, yet his tone  tone is meditative and devotional. A fine work of 'first theology' that demands a response of joyful doxology of the reader:

Glory be to God the Father. Glory be to God the Son. Glory be to God the Holy Spirit. 

Glory be to the only, living, true, and triune God.

The Mosaic Covenant: a covenant of works?

"This covenant [of grace] is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament" (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689, chapter 7:3)

Samuel Renihan (@Petty_France) recently tweeted a ten point summary of Thomas Goodwin's view of the Mosaic Covenant. I've reproduced the list below. Goodwin's stance bears more than a passing resemblance to that of his fellow Independent and good friend, John Owen. Owen's understanding of the Mosaic Covenant was highly influential in Particular Baptist circles. Renihan has dealt with this at length in his excellent, From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704), Regent's Park College, 2018. In essence Goodwin, Owen and many Particular Baptists held that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works that was subservient to the covenant of grace. This line of thought is certainly compatible with the Second London Baptist Confession, but it is not explicitly taught in that document. 

In his more recent The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant And His Kingdom, Founders Press, 2019 or Broken Warfe (UK edition), Renihan make this distinction between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, "In a covenant of works, when obedience has been rendered, blessings promised are enjoyed. Conversely, in a covenant of grace, after promises have been received, laws are introduced." But on that basis, was the Mosaic Covenant really a covenant of works? Did the Lord redeem Israel from Egypt and promise them the land of Canaan on the basis of obedience rendered? I think not. 

The Mosaic Covenant was a further elaboration of the Abrahamic Covenant especially formulated for Israel's life in the Promised Land, Exodus 3:1-8. The law was given to Israel as God's redeemed people, Exodus 20:1-2. It was as such that Israel entered into a solemn covenant with the Lord and promised to obey him, Exodus 24:3. The covenant was ratified by the shedding of blood without which there is no forgiveness of sins, Exodus 24:6-8, Hebrews 9:18-22. 

Should Israel renege on their covenant obligations they were threatened with exile from the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 28). But that does not make the Sinai Covenant a covenant of works. Unlike with Adam, there was a way back for Israel from the dark paths of sin, Leviticus 26:40-45. 

But neither does this mean that the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter VII:V). It was not. For one, the covenant of grace is with Christ and his elect people. The old covenant was with Abraham and his descendants, but 'not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel' (Romans 9:6). Among the people of Israel only a remnant were chosen by grace for salvation through the coming Messiah, Romans 11:5). The Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants were 'covenants of promise' (Ephesians 2:12) wherein the covenant of grace was revealed, "until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament". 

With those thoughts in mind I will offer a brief comment on each of Goodwin's points on the Mosaic Covenant as summarised by Renihan. 

1. It was a promulgation of the covenant of works - no. The Mosaic covenant was not a republication of the covenant of works with with Adam. Life in the Promised Land was not granted to Israel on the basis of their righteous obedience, Deuteronomy 7:6-8, 9:5. Neither was it an administration of the covenant of grace. It was a 'farther step' in the revelation of salvation promised in Christ. 

2. It was based on a redemption other than Christ's - yes, the exodus, which typified Christ's redemption, Colossians 1:12-14.  

3. It had a Mediator other than Christ - yes, Moses, who foreshadowed the work of Christ as mediator of the new covenant, Hebrews 3:1-6. 

4. It offered a sanctification other than Christ's - 'I am the Lord who sanctifies you' (Leviticus 20:8). Israel was set apart as God's holy nation by virtue of the Lord's electing love and redeeming power. Israel's holiness was to manifest itself as the nation was devoted to God in obedience to his commands. These commands included ceremonial rules such as the food laws of Leviticus 11 and regulations concerning bodily discharges in Leviticus 15. But Israel was also called to pursue an inward holiness that was only possible by the work of the Spirit, Psalm 24:3-6, Ezekiel 36:25-28. Israel's role as a 'holy nation' to the Lord was a shadowy picture of the sanctifying work of Christ by the Spirit under the new covenant, 1 Peter 1:1-2, 14-19, 2:9-10. 

5. It gave a justification other than Christ's. What does this even mean? Under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants justification was by faith in the promised Christ, Gen 15:6 (Romans 4:1-5), Psalm 32 (Romans 4:6-7). The Law and the Prophets of the old covenant bore witness to the righteousness of God apart from the law by faith in Christ, Romans 3:21-22. 

6. It promised an earthly life and inheritance. Yes, which was typical of the eternal inheritance of the saints, 1 Peter 1:3-5. 

7. Unregenerate Jews could keep the covenant. No, to do that their hearts needed to be circumcised,  Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6. That was only the case for a godly remnant, which was why Israel as a whole broke the covenant and was exiled from the land. The unregenerate could not live up to the law's demands and stood condemned for their disobedience (Romans 8:3a, Galatians 3:10-11). By way of contrast the new covenant was 'not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.' (2 Corinthians 3:6).

8. It was typical of the covenant of grace. How is this compatible with point 1? The Mosaic covenant is typical of the covenant of grace only because it was graciously made with Israel as a covenant of promise. The types and shadows of the old covenant point to Christ, the antitype and substance, Hebrews 8:5-6, Colossians 2:16-17. 

9. It was subservient to the covenant of grace. Yes. Its function was to prepare the way for Christ and then get out of the way once the mediator of a new and better covenant had come, Galatians 3:23-25, Hebrews 8:13.  

10. It was "truly, and toto genre, differing from" the covenant of grace. Yes, because a promise is different from its fulfilment, a type is different from an antitype and a shadow different from the substance. The temporary old covenant was indeed different from the eternal covenant of grace which was finally and fully disclosed in the new covenant.

The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom by Samuel Renihan

The big problem with The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom by Samuel Renihan is that it wasn't readily available in the UK. I managed to blag a review copy, but otherwise British readers would have needed to shell out a tidy sum in p&p to obtain a copy. You can see Part 1 of my review here. It is an excellent a treatment of covenant theology from a Reformed Baptist standpoint. The title traces the the broad sweep of redemptive history in terms of covenant and kingdom. It's rich in biblical insight and theological depth. The Particular Baptist perspective does justice to the lines of continuity and discontinuity between the old and new covenants. The 'mystery of Christ' shines through brightly, both in the 'covenants of promise' of the Old Testament and, of course in the new covenant in which the covenant of grace comes into its own. The good news is that Founders Press have now sorted out UK distribution, so you can buy it here. Just in time for Christmas.

The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom by Samuel Renihan (review part 3)

Founders Press, 2019, 217pp

See here for part 1 and part 2 of this review series. 

Constructive appraisal 

In The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Samuel Renihan has admirably traced the grand plot line of the Bible in covenantal/kingdom terms. He has done justice both to the continuity and discontinuity of old and new covenants, as the mystery of Christ is progressively revealed. While the  writer draws on the riches of the Particular Baptist theological tradition, this is a fresh study in its own right and yields many valuable insights. That the Davidic kings were in effect the federal heads of the Mosaic covenant is one. The author admirably highlights the eschatological dimensions of Christ's covenant and kingdom. 

His characterisation of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as 'covenants of works' is not quite so convincing. Renihan certainly does not take the Meredith Kline view that Sinai was a republication of the Adamic covenant of works based on strict merit (p. 111). But in some sense he holds that the Old Covenant operated as a covenant works, as least as far as appropriating the blessings of life in the Promised Land were concerned. 

If, however, threats of chastening judgement and promises of reward for obedient faithfulness constitute a covenant of works, then the New Covenant could arguably be construed as such. In the New Covenant the covenant of grace comes into its own, yet God's judgements upon Israel are taken as a warning to the church (1 Corinthians 10). Christians may also appropriate Old Testament promises of reward, but stripped of their shadowy form and seen in the light of eternity (Matthew 25:14-30, Ephesians 6:2-3). Note the many threats and promises in the Letters to the Churches in Revelation 2-3. To be clear, under both Old and New covenants, rewards were dispensed graciously by the Lord, rather than earned or merited. 

If the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were not covenants of works and neither can they be identified with the Covenant of Grace, what are they? Renihan is nearer the mark when he says, 'There is no covenant prior to Christ that reveals His covenant as directly as the Abrahamic Covenant does. The unilateral free gift of the earthly typical promises most clearly demonstrates the unilateral and free gift of the heavenly antitypical promises to the elect.' (p. 100). Further, he writes that 'the covenant of circumcision [made with Abraham] was a covenant of guardianship. It is a covenant that constitutes Abraham's descendants the womb of the Messiah.' (p. 101). 

The giving of the law at Sinai did not compromise the gracious character of the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3:15-29. The law functioned as a guardian until Christ came. It 'increased the trespass' (Romans 5:20) by exposing the sinfulness of sin that those who were under the law might seek the righteousness of God by faith in Christ (Romans 10:3-4). 

The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were not recognisably covenants of works. They were 'covenants of promise'. Through their shadowy types and figures they spoke of the promised Messiah who would be born of Abraham's line. 'They are Israelites, to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants... and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.' (Romans 9:4-5). 

This criticism should not detract from the work as a whole. For too long Paedobaptists have cornered the market in covenant theology, while Reformed or Grace Baptists have lagged behind. Renihan's title is an important contribution to covenant theology from a Baptist standpoint.  That said, readers will not find heated polemic here. The author makes his case in a gracious and winsome way, insightfully handling the text of Scripture and ensuring that doctrine leads to doxology before the glorious mystery of Christ. 

I am most grateful to Founders Press for sending me a complimentary review copy of this book. I would urge them to make it available more widely, as importing the title from the USA is prohibitively expensive for readers in the United Kingdom.  

The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom by Samuel Renihan (review part 2)

Founders Press, 2019, 217pp

See here for part 1 and part 3 of this review series. 

The Kingdom of Christ

The Covenants of Redemption and Grace 

Christ came proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and was himself the King who inaugurated God's saving reign. As with the earlier biblical kingdoms, covenants formed the legal basis upon which God dealt with man in the kingdom of God. Renihan gives attention to the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. The idea of the Covenant of Redemption is largely deduced from Isaiah's Servant Songs, where the Father and the Son make commitments to each other concerning the redemption of human beings from sin. The Holy Spirit is said to be 'everywhere present' in this covenant (p. 154), but he doesn't seem to be doing very much. This is a common feature in many accounts of the Covenant of Redemption, which tend to be bininatrian, rather than trinitarian in focus. The Spirit's role in this pre-temporal 'covenant' needs to be developed more fully. Partly for that reason Robert Letham prefers to speak of the eternal Trinitarian counsel, rather than a Covenant of Redemption, Systematic Theology, p. 431-438).  

According to Renihan the blessings of the Covenant of Redemption are bestowed upon sinners through the New Covenant of Grace. While the Covenant of Grace was disclosed in promissory form under the Old Covenant, it was not promulgated, or legally enacted until Christ had completed his mediatorial work, Hebrews 8:6, 9:11-15, 24-26. The types and shadows of the old then gave way to the substance of the new. The blessings of the New Covenant were detailed in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (see also Hebrews 8:8-13). These numerous blessings flow from union with Jesus Christ, the federal head of the covenant. They include justification, regeneration and sanctification, adoption and preservation, and resurrection and glorification. 

Unlike the Old Covenant, which Israel broke through her disobedience, the New Covenant cannot be broken because it is based on the obedience of Jesus Christ on behalf of his people. Even our saving response to Christ's work is bestowed by grace. Under the Old Covenant there were many physical descendants from Abraham who did not follow his faith and obedience. They were Israel according to the flesh, not according to the promise (Romans 9). The New Covenant abolishes any such distinction. Membership is not based on physical descent, but God's electing grace brought to realisation through saving faith in Christ, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 2:8-9). Covenant blessings are bestowed not on the grounds of our obedience, but due to the oaths the Father solemnly swore to his Son (Hebrews 6:13-20). 'We rest and rejoice in his faithfulness.' (p, 175).

The New Covenant and the Kingdom of God 

In the Covenant of Redemption the Father covenanted a Kingdom to his Son on completion of his redeeming work. Under the New Covenant of Grace that Kingdom is in turn covenanted to Christ's people. This is made explicit in Luke 22:29, which the author translates as, "And I covenant unto you, as my Father covenanted unto me, a kingdom." (p. 176, original emphasis). The Lord's Supper anticipates the consummated kingdom of God, where all of the Lord's people will gather in the new creation under God's gracious reign for all eternity. 

The people of the Covenant of Grace are those who were given to the Son by the Father in eternity according to his electing love. For them the Son shed his blood. His redeeming work is applied to them by the Holy Spirit. They constitute a new humanity in Christ, their federal head, the last Adam. The New Covenant completely reverses the corruption and condemnation of the broken Covenant of Works. Indeed, we are given more in Christ than we lost in Adam. In Christ we look forward to 'an eternal life of glory and perfect communion with God.' (p. 178). 

Israel and the Church 

Where does all this leave Israel, the Old Covenant people of God? They clearly had the unique privilege of belonging to the 'covenants of promise', according to which Christ would be born of the seed of Abraham and David. The great tragedy for Israel was that when Jesus came, only a remnant received him as their Messiah and in him the rich blessings of the New Covenant. Paul seems to hold out the hope that ethnic Israel will be recovered for the gospel once the 'fulness of the Gentiles has come in' (Romans 11:25). God is able to graft his people back into the covenant community when they turn to Christ in saving faith (Romans 11:23). 

The apostle reasons that if Israel's 'failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more their will their full inclusion mean!' (Romans 11:12). Renihan understands the promise, 'all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:26) to mean that the 'fulness of Jews and Gentiles' will be saved (p. 191). But by 'Israel' Paul consistently means ethnic Israel in Romans 9-11, 'my kinsmen according to the flesh' (Romans 9:3). There is good reason to think that Paul holds out the hope that there will be a great turning to the Lord among ethnic Israel before the Christ returns. 

The Law and Grace 

Speaking of Israel, as pointed out in part 1 the author regards the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants as covenants of works, (p. 98). The blessings of life in the land of Canaan were certainly dependent upon Israel's obedience. But Renihan distinguishes these covenants from the Covenant of Works in Adam. For Adam and us in him there was no way back to God after being expelled from Eden apart from God's promise of a deliverer, Genesis 3:15. Under the Old Covenant, however, the sacrificial system provided a means of atonement for sin if the people of returned to the Lord in genuine repentance and looked in faith for the coming Messiah. 

Contrary to what the writer says here, under the Mosaic Covenant the Lord did not simply require a civic obedience that 'an unbeliever could render' (p. 111). Israel was called to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart' (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet it was only as the Lord circumcised their hearts that Israel could obey that command (Deuteronomy 30:6 cf. Romans 2:28-29). When Israel rejected the way of faith in the promise and spurned their covenant obligations, the law became a code than condemned rather than a guide for life. 

All biblical covenants are 'based on grace, yet regulated by law.' (Robert Letham, see part 1). Yet, as Renihan argues in line with the Particular Baptist tradition, the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were not in themselves administrations of the Covenant of Grace. They had different federal heads in Abraham and David, and different members; physical descendants of Abraham, only a remnant of whom trusted and obeyed. The blessings of the Old Covenant were earthly and temporal, concerning life in the Promised Land. Christ mediates a better covenant enacted on better promises (Hebrews 8:6, 9:15).

Christ is the 'Lord our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6). He fulfilled the legal obligations of the Covenant of Works on behalf of his people. The types and shadows of the Old Covenant have also been realised in Christ, yet the moral law continues to apply to the Christian. But for them it is not merely an external code written on tablets of stone. The law is written on their hearts by the Spirit and is fulfilled by love (2 Corinthians 3:3, Romans 13:10). 

The Consummated Kingdom

In Christ the mystery of God's eternal purpose is revealed on the stage of history to the praise of his glorious grace. Those who are united to Christ by faith belong to his kingdom which finds visible expression in the church. Only those who show evidence of regeneration and profess faith in Christ may take their place as members of the church of Jesus Christ. Church membership should therefore be guarded through godly church discipline. Traitors to the covenant who turn from faith in Christ show that they never truly belonged to him and have no place in the church that bears his name. The sacraments of the kingdom are 'visible words', tangible expressions of the gospel. As such baptism and the Lord's Supper are only for those who have been savingly united to Christ by the Spirit. 

These signs are a foretaste of the heavenly realities of the consummated kingdom, in which the blessings of the New Covenant will be enjoyed when the King returns as judge of all humanity. Those who have rejected King Jesus will be raised to everlasting punishment. The people he came to save will be raised to life everlasting, a spotless bride for whom the bridegroom gave himself in love. They shall live in his presence in the new creation, where they shall gaze upon the glory of the Lamb and worship him for ever. 

In the final part of this review series I will attempt to offer a constructive appraisal of Renihan's work. 

The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom by Samuel Renihan (review part 1)

Founders Press, 2019, 217pp

In his earlier title, From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704), Samuel Renihan set out to demonstrate that the federal theology of the seventeenth English Particular Baptists was a legitimate strain within Reformed covenant theology. A work of historical theology, in it the author compared and contrasted the views of Nehemiah Coxe and others with mainline Orthodox Reformed thought. The Mystery of Christ: His Kingdom & His Covenant is a fresh and original study in its own right. The focus here is on how the twin themes of covenant and kingdom disclose the 'mystery of Christ' as they unfold in biblical revelation. 

Methodology 

Renihan begins by clearing the ground, dealing with matters of methodology and defining key terms. He makes an important distinction between our obligation to God by virtue of creation and covenant-based relationships. As God's creatures, human beings are subject to 'natural law'. Keeping the law in that sense would not merit a reward, for God is due our entire obedience. In a covenant relationship, however, God may be pleased of his own free goodness to reward obedience with the promise of life. Covenants often involve 'positive laws' that go beyond the universal moral standards of natural law. The command that Adam should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an example of positive law, as is the command that the descendants of Abraham should be circumcised. Positive laws are contingent on specific covenant relationships. They cannot of necessity be carried forward into different covenant dispensations. The positive rules and regulations of the old covenant no longer apply in new covenant era, as in Christ we have the substance to which they pointed. 

Another important distinction is made between the law and the gospel. In a stark sense law and gospel are polar opposites. The former demands perfect obedience to God's commands, the latter offers Christ's perfect imputed righteousness to the believing sinner. But in terms of the historic biblical covenants, law and gospel are both present. While the old covenant is often described as 'the law', it also held out the promise of life in Christ. While the new covenant underscores that salvation is by faith alone, the law is written on the hearts of believers and its righteous requirements are fulfilled in those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. As Robert Letham points out, all the biblical covenants are based on grace, yet regulated by law. (Systematic Theology, Robert Letham, Crossway, 2019, p. 364-365). 

The old covenant bore witness to Christ though it's types and shadows, but the full revelation of Messiah and his work was not yet made known. That is why Paul refers to the 'mystery of Christ' (Ephesians 3:4, Colossians 4:3). Biblical revelation is progressive. Covenant theology should be sensitive to history and mystery and not try to flatten the upward curve of God's self-disclosure in Christ. 

Renihan sees an intimate connection between the themes of covenant and kingdom. A covenant is a guaranteed commitment between two parties. Promises are attached to the fulfilment of covenant obligations. Sanctions or threats give the covenant arrangement legal sanction. In terms of the biblical covenants God promises blessing to those who are faithful to his covenant and threatens judgement upon those who break its terms. Remarkably, the Lord took the sanctions upon himself when formalising his covenant with Abraham, Genesis 15:9-10, 17-20. 

Three Kingdoms 

God contracts his covenants with federal heads, or representative figures. That was certainly the case with the covenants associated with Adam, Noah, David and Christ. Blessings or sanctions flow from the federal heads to those who belong to them. "Covenants function as the legal basis upon which God interacts with man in a given kingdom." (p. 54). This applies to the three kingdoms God established, each governed by their own specific covenants. The Lord governs the Kingdom of Creation by means of the Covenant of Works and the Noahic Covenant. The Kingdom of Israel is constituted by the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants. Finally the Kingdom of Christ is the realisation of the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace. 

The Kingdom of Creation 

Although the word 'covenant' may not be used of God's relationship with humanity in Adam (but see Hosea 6:7), all the essential elements of a biblical covenant are present. By virtue of his creation, Adam was obligated to obey God, both in terms of 'natural law' and also his God-given task of exercising dominion over the creation. But beyond that, Adam was the recipient of covenantal promises and sanctions. He was promised access to the tree of life and the reward of entering God's rest once his work of subduing creation had been completed. He was threatened with the sanction of death and expulsion from the garden sanctuary of Eden if he disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

Adam did not deserve the blessings of life and rest. In his goodness God condescended to bestow these rewards upon him on the condition of obedience, This was a covenant of works. That Adam was the federal head of the covenant of works is evident from the fact that all humanity fell with him into sin and death according to the Genesis account. This is further spelt out in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

The covenant of works has now been abrogated. There is no way back to Eden, no second chance to keep its command to refrain from eating of the forbidden tree. Humanity remains under the curse of this broken covenant, however. Sin reigns in death over all people in Adam. The moral law continues to demand obedience to God, but sinners cannot live up to its requirements and so attract God's condemnation and wrath for their transgressions. 

The promise of salvation through a deliverer immediately after the fall was the first revelation of the covenant of grace, Genesis 3:15. It was only by means of this covenant that the protology of the covenant of works would be brought to its eschatological fulfilment in Christ. As Isaac Watts sang, 'In him the tribes of Adam boast/more blessings than their father lost." 

Under the Noahic covenant, after the judgement of the flood the Lord promised to preserve the 'common kingdom' of sin-ruined creation until Christ came to make all things new. "The mystery of Christ will unfold in this theatre of preservation." (p. 82).

The Kingdom of Israel 

In common with the Particular Baptist tradition Renihan links the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants as variegated expressions of the old covenant. These covenants flowed from God's grace towards Israel, but they are not in themselves administrations of the covenant of grace. They were intended to serve as 'covenants of promise' through which Messiah would be born into the world and bring blessing to Israel and all peoples. While the promise of Messiah though the seed of Abraham entailed a further revelation of the covenant of grace, life in the Promised Land was conditional upon Israel fulfilling her covenant obligations. In that sense the old covenant was a covenant of works, but that does not mean it was a republication of the Adamic covenant. 

The laws associated with the Mosaic covenant elaborated upon the covenant obligations that the Lord imposed upon Abraham, Genesis 17:1, 9-11. But the people of Israel were not saved by keeping those laws. Rather, like Abraham, salvation was for those who believed the promise of blessing through Messiah, Genesis 15:6 cf. Romans 4. Not all of Abraham's descendants believed the promise that was revealed to them through the types and shadows of the old covenant, Romans 9. The law had no power to compel obedience. Israel was often wayward and rebellious. Their covenant breaking led to Israel being expelled from the Promised Land. 

The kings in the line of David acted as federal heads of the whole nation. The kingdom of Israel rose or fell according to the faithfulness of their earthly rulers, 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89. 

The people of Israel were in a highly privileged position. From the descendants of Abraham and David would come the longed for Christ. But Israel broke the terms of the old covenant. Her kingdom lay in ruins. A new covenant and kingdom was therefore needed, Jeremiah 31:31-34. 

I think I'll leave it there for now. In part 2 of the review we will look at what Renihan has to say about the Kingdom of Christ and then move from an attempt to summarise his thesis to constructive appraisal. One critical point that I would make is that The Mystery of Christ isn't available in the UK, or can only be ordered if you are willing to pay a handsome price for p&p. Mine is a review copy courtesy  of Founders Press. I hope they soon are able to sort out a UK distribution deal. 

See here for part 2 and part 3 of this review series. 

From Shadow to Substance: the old covenant and the covenant of grace

In a previous post I discussed whether the old covenant was a covenant of works. See here for my review of Shadow and Substance by Samuel D. Renihan.

Speaking of the Abrahamic covenant Particular Baptist pioneer, Nehemiah Coxe wrote that it was, 'a Covenant of Grace and Mercy...yet not that Covenant of Grace' by which Abraham's spiritual seed were saved.' (From Shadow to Substance, p. 257-258, n 122). He applied the same logic to the Sinai covenant. Coxe wanted to distinguish between the Abrahamic covenant as a manifestation of God's grace to the patriarch and his descendants and the covenant of grace proper.

The early Particular Baptists did not agree with the Presbyterian's Westminster Confession and the Independent's Savoy Declaration that the covenant of grace was 'variously administered' during the Old Testament era. The Second London Baptist Confession puts things rather differently, "This covenant [of grace] is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament" (VII.3). 

Promised and promulgated 

Coxe and others were reluctant to identify the old covenant and the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant operated on the basis of natural descent. The covenant was made with the Patriarch and his children who were marked with the seal of circumcision. It was to Abraham and his 'seed', the people of Israel that the Lord promised to give the land of Canaan. From Abraham's 'seed' the Messiah would one day come in whom all nations would be blessed. 

Particular Baptists granted that the covenant of grace was revealed in the types and shadows of Old Testament period, but it was not properly realised until the coming of Christ. It is for that reason that Paul refers to 'the covenants' God made with Israel (Romans 9:14) as 'covenants of promise' (Ephesians 2:12). The apostle recognised a diversity of covenants; Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic. The various covenants were united by holding forth the promise of something better in Christ. Those who trusted in the promise were saved on the basis of what Christ would do for them, Romans 3:25-26, Hebrews 9:15. 

A distinction, then, must be maintained between covenant of grace promised and promulgated (legally enacted). The gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham and his children by revelation of the promise of the covenant of grace. See Galatians 3:8, Genesis 3:15, 12:3, 22:18, 2 Samuel 7:12-16. Christ is 'seed' of woman, (Galatians 4:4), the 'seed' of Abraham, (Galatians 3:16), and the 'seed' of David, (2 Timothy 2:8). Promise is different to fulfillment. The covenant grace was only promulgated on death of Testator, Hebrews 9:15-17.  

Sorting the seeds 

But not all of Abraham's offspring were 'children of promise' who laid hold of the promise of grace in the coming Deliverer (Romans 9:8). Paul sorts Abraham's seed, saying, 'not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel' (Romans 9:6). As John the Baptist warned, natural descent from Abraham counted for nothing. What mattered was repentance from sin and faith in 'he who is coming', the Messiah (Matthew 3:9, 11).  According to Paul there was only a godly remnant within Israel 'chosen by grace'. The rest were hardened in their sin and stood condemned for their unbelief and disobedience. 

That is why Israel was exiled from the Promised Land and why few in Israel believed in the Messiah when he came, (Romans 9:27-29, 11:5, 7). Abraham's spiritual children among his descendants embraced the long-awaited Redeemer and took their place among the new covenant people of God. See Simeon (Luke 2:22-35) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The prospect of the covenant of grace held out during the Old Testament period means that believers today are rightly called to emulate the faith of the 'children of promise', Romans 4, Hebrews 11. Salvation has only ever been by faith in Christ. 

The Orthodox Reformed taught that the covenant of grace was between God and the elect in Christ. Clearly, not all of Abraham's descents were elect. That is why old covenant cannot be identified with the covenant of grace. Under the old covenant true knowledge of the Lord was sometimes rare. The prophets lamented, 'there is no knowledge of God in the land.' (Hosea 4:1). Only a minority in Israel seem to have experienced heart circumcision that led to godly obedience. Witness the period of the Judges, widespread apostasy in the northern kingdom, followed by Judah. 

What was the exception under the old covenant is the rule in the new, Jeremiah 31:33-34. That is because the new covenant is the historical realisation of the covenant of grace between God and the elect in Christ. When Jesus the 'seed of promise' came the principle of belonging to the covenant community by natural descent was phased out along with circumcision as the covenant sign. Only those who trust in Christ belong to the new covenant, with believers' baptism now the sign of belonging, Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:38-39, Galatians 3:27-29. 

Israel's chequered history should not be a cause of smugness for the new covenant people of God. Her apostasy is a warning to us to stand by faith and continue in the way of obedience, Romans 11:19-22, 1 Corinthians 10:6-13, Hebrews 10:26-31.  

Weak and unprofitable  

Further, the old covenant cannot rightly be described as an 'administration of the covenant of grace' because it could not in itself save from sin. In that respect it was 'weak and unprofitable', (Hebrews 7:18). Its animal sacrifices were incapable of truly atoning for Israel's transgressions, Hebrews 10:4. The law was 'weakened through the flesh' having no means of providing forgiveness or ensuring obedience, (Romans 8:3). Israel broke the Mosaic covenant through her unfaithfulness, Jeremiah 31:31-32. A new covenant was needed under which sins could be forgiven and hearts transformed, Jeremiah 31:33-34. It was only by seeing the types and shadows of the old covenant as pointers to Christ that the children of Israel could hope to find salvation. 

A covenant of grace, not that covenant of grace 

Yet it is important to underline that the old covenant was not a post-fall republication of the covenant of works. Were that the case, how could a works-based covenant foreshadow a grace-based one? God was gracious towards Israel under the old covenant, 'slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love' (Exodus 34:6-7). The Lord's merciful dealings with Israel served as a trailer for the abounding grace of the new covenant. Israel's undeserved election has its counterpart in the election of individuals in the covenant of grace, Deuteronomy 7:6-8, Ephesians 1:4-5. Israel's redemption from Egypt previewed Christ's redeeming work, Exodus 6:6, Colossians 1:13-14.  Israel's calling as a 'kingdom of priests' was a harbinger of the role of the new covenant people of God, Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9. Israel's mission was handed on to the church in expanded form, Zechariah 8:20-23, Luke 24:44-49. Israel's inheritance in Canaan served as a pointer to 'a better country, a heavenly one' Deuteronomy 15:4, Hebrews 11:16. Israel's prophets, priests and kings were types of Christ, the great prophet, priest and king. God was certainly good to Israel under the old covenant, Psalm 73:1. But the covenant of grace held out the prospect of yet greater blessings to come, the 'full discovery thereof [being] completed in the New Testament', (Second London Baptist Confession, VII.3 - here).

Covenants of promise 

So, if the old covenant was not a covenant of works, or the covenant of grace, what was it? The old covenant was an expression of God's goodness to Israel and through Israel to the world. But the old was not the same essential covenant as the new, differently administrated. Identifying the old covenant with the covenant of grace flattens off the 'step up' from the old dispensation to the new. The blessings of the old covenant were 'carnal', having to do with covenant membership by natural descent and life in the Promised Land during this present age. The blessings of the new covenant are spiritual and received by faith, Ephesians 1:3, 2:8. The inheritance of the new covenant people of God is the new creation in the age to come, 1 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 3:13. 

The covenants of the Old Testament era were 'covenants of promise', carrying the pledge of salvation in Christ, but they did not in themselves posses saving grace. The relationship between the old and new covenants is that of shadow and substance, type and antitype, temporary and eternal, provisional and ultimate, the Spirit not yet given and the Spirit poured out on all flesh. The godly remnant in Israel has become the church, in which all are 'called to be saints' (Romans 1:7). The old covenant had its glory, right enough, but the glory of the new covenant is greater (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). Now the promise of the covenant of grace has been fulfilled. The Servant of the Lord has come of whom the Lord said, 'I will give you as a covenant for the people' (Isaiah 42:6). The covenant has been  ratified in Christ's blood and its blessings flow forth in abundance, (1 Corinthians 11:23-25).  'But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.' (Hebrews 8:6). And so we sing, 

Blessings on blessings through ages unending,
Covenant fullness in glorious flood;
Ours is a hope which no mortal can measure,
Brought in by Jesus and sealed in His blood.
Jessie F Webb, 1866-1964

From Shadow to Substance: the old covenant and the covenant of works

In his From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704), I believe Samuel D. Renihan has proven his case in terms of historical theology. The Particular Baptists aligned themselves with an important line of thought within Reformed covenant theology. They agreed with the likes of John Cameron and John Owen that the old covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace (contra the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VII - here). Rather, it was a covenant of works, subservient to the covenant of grace.

They also distinguished between the covenant of grace promised in the old covenant era and promulgated under the new. While the covenant of grace was certainly revealed in the types and shadows of the Old Testament period, only the new covenant could be fully identified with the covenant of grace. This was the position advocated by key Particular Baptist thinkers such as Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach. As I indicated in the review, Renihan's thesis raises a bigger biblical and theological  question, which is whether the old covenant is rightly described as a covenant of works? That's the issue I want to try and address in this post.

The covenant of works and Israel 

There is very little difference between Westminster, Savoy and London on the covenant of works that obtained between God and humanity in Adam (see VII.1 here). All agree that Adam owed God a debt of obedience and that he would only attain the 'reward of life' by 'some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.' 

In other words, God did not owe Adam life on the basis of his works, but he covenanted to reward obedience with life. If we may speak of merit on this connection, it is not strict merit where the reward is proportionate to the obedience rendered. Rather what we see here is covenant merit, where the reward offered is an expression of God's abundant goodness towards humanity in Adam. Nevertheless this was a covenant of works, in which the reward of life would be granted only on the condition of perfect obedience. 

The Particular Baptists regarded the Abrahamic as well as Sinai covenants as covenants of works. Circumcision imposed covenant obligations upon the people of Israel. The blessings of life in the Promised Land would only be enjoyed if Israel obeyed the law. Yet there were tensions in Nehemiah Coxe's view. He saw grace as well as the works principle in operation in relation to Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Coxe held that the old covenant, "had ultimately respect to spiritual Blessings...in a Subserviency to the Covenant of Grace...yet it was not immediately and directly, a Covenant of spiritual Blessings." In a footnote Renihan notes Coxe's concession  that, "it was gracious of God to grant the covenant of circumcision with Abraham. But it was not a covenant of saving grace. He said, 'this was a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, having its Original in the meer Goodness, and undeserved Favour of God...yet it was not that Covenant of Grace, which God made with Abraham for all his spiritual Seed.'" (p. 257-258, n 122).

And so to our question. Given that the old covenant had its basis in the grace and mercy of God, in what sense can it be be described as a post-fall republication of the covenant of works, subservient though it was to the covenant of grace? Ironically, these days Presbyterians as well as Particular Baptists are found arguing that the Mosaic covenant was in some sense a covenant of works (see here).

The covenant of works and the law

I think the first thing to say here is that the covenant of works is still in operation. It is on the basis the covenant of works that Adam was constituted the federal head of humanity. That is why Adam's 'original sin' is counted as ours in him, Romans 5:21-21. While the federal structure and sanctions of the covenant of works still stand, there is no way back to Eden for fallen humanity. The 'reward of life' cannot any longer be obtained by human obedience, for our 'righteous acts are like filthy rags' (Isaiah 64:6). 

However, I take it for granted that the Ten Commandments embody what God has always required of human beings. The spiritual and moral principles of the law applied prior to them being formally issued at Sinai. Adam's 'original sin' was an act of transgression involving violation of each of the Ten Commandments (see here).

The law demands perfect obedience, but it cannot produce flawless obedience. The law therefore brings death and condemnation, rather than life to sinners, Romans 3:19-20. That is why we need 'the righteousness of God...apart from the law' that he provides in Christ, Romans 3:21-26, Galatians 2:15-16.

Were the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants established as means by which Abraham's descendants could achieve the reward of life by their obedience to the law? I think the answer to that has to be, No. As Coxe recognised it was solely by the Lord's mercy and grace that he promised to be the God of Abraham and his descendants, granting them the sign of circumcision, and promising them the blessings of life in the land of Canaan. According to the Particular Baptists,  if the old covenant operated as a covenant of works, it did so in a way that was subservient to the covenant of grace. The law served to highlight the need for people to turn from their sin-tainted works to the promised Christ for salvation. The promised Christ being revealed in the types and shadows of the old covenant.

Certainly, being in a covenant relationship with God entailed certain obligations for Abraham and his descendants, Gen 17:1-2, 9-14. These obligations were further elaborated upon under the Sinai covenant in terms of the law,  both the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:1-17 and the Book of the Covenant, Exodus 20:18-24:18. But this does not necessarily mean that the old covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. The law was given as a rule of life for God's chosen people whom he had redeemed from Egypt and to whom he had promised the blessings of life in the Promised Land.

A way back to God 

Even where blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience were stipulated under the old covenant, there was a way back to God from the dark paths of sin (Leviticus 26, especially Leviticus 26:40-45, Deuteronomy 28, Deuteronomy 30:1-10, 1 Kings 8:46-53). What God commanded, a circumcised heart that obeyed his law (Deuteronomy 10:12-16), he also promised to give (Deuteronomy 30:6). The sacrificial system made provision for atonement and the forgiveness of sin, Leviticus 16. Israel was not to trust in her own obedience, but look to the Lord for salvation, Psalm 98:1-3, Isaiah 45:22. Israel was in a very different position to Adam. There was no way back for him under the covenant of works, only exclusion and death. The announcement of covenant of grace in Genesis 3:15  was his only hope.

In his Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, Greg Nichols accepts the Westminster idea that the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. In that respect he departs from the Particular Baptist tradition, but I believe he was none the less right to say,

Thus the Mosaic covenant did not promote legalism. It did not teach sinners get right with God by the works of the law. It was not a republication of the pre-fall covenant of works. It called Israel as a society to gospel obedience. God built the Mosaic covenant on the foundation of the need for regeneration and justification by faith. (Covenant Theology, p. 232). 

The purpose of the law under the old covenant was not contrary to the promise of salvation by faith. As Paul reasons in Galatians 3:15-29, the law was given to show the seriousness of sin and to act as a guardian for Israel 'until Christ came that we might be justified by faith'. When, however, Israel rejected the grace that was promised under the old covenant and either sought to establish her own righteousness by the works of the law, or broke the covenant by flagrant disobedience, she stood condemned by the righteous standards of God' s law, Deuteronomy 27:26.  

Grace alone 

Paul's Judaising opponents rejected salvation by grace alone and taught salvation by grace plus works. For them, being circumcised meant taking on board the full obligations of the law, apart from which none could be saved, Acts 15:1-2, Galatians 5:3. But to seek justification by the law was to be cut off from Christ and fall from grace (Galatians 5:4). The law then becomes a code that condemns, demanding a perfect obedience that no sinful human being can render.

The polemical context of Paul's writing helps to explain his seemingly negative view of the old covenant as a law-based dispensation, Romans 10:1-5, 2 Corinthians 3:4-6, Galatians 3:10-12. In its original context Leviticus 18:5 did not intend to teach life as a reward for works. It was addressed to Israel as the people whom the Lord had chosen and redeemed, to whom he had given the law as a rule of life, Psalm 19:7, 119:93. The 'letter kills' only those who spurn the promise of salvation by grace alone and self-righteously trust in their own obedience, or who rebelliously refuse to obey God's commands.

Love and the law

The new covenant as well as the old includes commandments and obligations, Matthew 5:17-48. John 14:15, 21, 15:12, Romans 13:8-10. The new covenant even has its blessings and woes, Matthew 5:1-11, 23:1-36. These things do not make the new covenant any the less a covenant of grace that is based on faith in Christ's finished work. Saving faith is an active faith that issues in obedience. That holds true under old and new covenants.

Besides, if the old covenant was a republication of the covenant of works, in what way could it foreshadow the new covenant, which is the historical manifestation of the covenant of grace? A covenant that says, 'obey and live' cannot meaningfully serve as a type of one that says, 'believe and live'.

If not republications of the covenant of works, were the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in fact different administrations of the covenant of grace per Westminster and Savoy? I'm not so sure. That, however, is for another post. 

From Shadow to Substance by Samuel D. Renihan

From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)

Samuel D. Renihan, Regent's Park College, 2018. 389pp

Holiday reading #3

In the seventeenth century English Particular Baptists (believers in the Calvinistic doctrine of particular redemption or definite atonement) faced the charge that in rejecting infant baptism for baptism on profession of faith, they had jettisoned a key tenet of Reformed covenant theology. They were no more 'Reformed' than their European Anabaptist cousins.

The Particular Baptists protested that they were Reformed, not a bunch of dodgy continental radicals. They were in full agreement with the defining Reformed dogma there are only two types of covenant. The covenant of works that God made with all humanity in Adam and the covenant of grace that God made with the the elect in Christ. In the covenant of works eternal life is granted on the basis of obedience to God's law. In the covenant of grace eternal life is granted on the basis of Christ's saving work, and is received by faith. Salvation is either on the basis of works or grace. There can be no middle ground. So far, so Reformed.

The point at issue between Particular Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists was the relationship between the old covenant and the covenant of grace. Was the old covenant an administration of the covenant of grace, or was it in some way a republication of the covenant of works? Renihan sets his study in historical context by tracing the development of Reformed covenant theology from John Calvin and other formative writers to the mature thought of the Orthodox Reformed divines of the  early 17th century. A consensus view emerged as represented by the Westminster Confession of Faith that the covenant of grace was variously administered during the Old Testament period and that the Mosaic covenant was just such an administration. But the consensus was not universal.

Renihan's thesis is that the position advocated by Particular Baptist writers was in keeping with  a major strand of thought located within the diverse field of Reformed covenant theology. They were not the only ones who held that the Mosaic covenant was not in fact an administration of the covenant of grace. John Cameron (c.1579-1625) taught that the covenant of grace was promised, but not promulgated in earlier biblical covenants. The Sinai covenant promised life in earthly Canaan, and was subservient to the covenant of grace, which was only promulgated in the new covenant.

As such, Cameron reasoned, Sinai was neither a full-blown covenant of works, or the covenant of grace, but something in the middle, which served as a means to an end. The end being the covenant of grace that promised life to all who believe in Christ. The old covenant was a type of the greater blessings what are offered under the new covenant. Israel enjoyed the earthly benefits of the Mosaic covenant, but by faith looked beyond the types and shadows of that dispensation to Christ and his redeeming work. 

A similar line was taken by the Puritan divine John Owen (1616-1683). In his massive commentary on Hebrews he argued that the old covenant was a covenant of works in subservience to the covenant of  grace. He included the Abrahamic as well as Mosaic covenants within this purview. The old covenant had to do with carnal realities such as Abraham's family line. The covenant was with Abraham and his 'seed', sealed by circumcision. God promised that Abraham's 'seed' would possess Canaan. The covenant community was bound to obey God as a condition of remaining in the land. The Mosaic covenant further clarified Israel's covenant obligations in the shape of the law. Again, for Owen the old covenant foreshadowed the new covenant in Christ. But when the new covenant was established, the carnal ordinances of the old were abolished.

Owen posited that under the old covenant it was necessary to sort Abraham's seed into two lots, carnal and spiritual. First, Abraham's natural descendants, from whom Christ  would one day come, but not all of whom were elect. Second, those, who, like Abraham believed the promise of salvation in Christ, and were among the elect. With the advent of the new covenant, the carnal aspect is done away with, said Owen, for Christ, the 'seed of Abraham' had arrived. That is why circumcision is not the sign of belonging to the new covenant community, but baptism. Only those who believe in Christ now belong to the covenant people of God.  Owen was a Paedobaptist, but his construal of the relationship between the old and new covenants played into the hands of Particular Baptist writers. 

Nehemiah Coxe (1650-1689) was especially taken with Owen's treatment of the covenants. When it came to the Mosaic covenant, Coxe simply referred his readers to Owen. His innovation was to take Owen's arguments and apply them in a more consistent way to the Abrahamic covenant. Paedobaptists insisted that the Abrahamic and Moasic covenants were administrations of the covenant of grace. Just as under the old covenant, the promises were made to Abraham and his seed, so now under the new covenant, the same principle applied. Therefore the children of believers should be baptised, as baptism is the new covenant counterpart of circumcision.

But, Coxe pointed out, if Owen was right, that does not follow. The Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensations were covenants of works that foreshadowed the covenant of grace, but they were not to be identified with it. The new covenant was a testament, and the testament only came into effect on the death of the testator, Jesus (Hebrews 9:15-17). Moreover, carnal aspects of the old covenant such as  membership of the covenant community by ancestral secession from the Patriarchs and an earthly promised land had been phased out now that a new and better covenant was in operation. Belonging to the new covenant people of God was not defined by birth, but belief in Christ, followed by baptism.

Paedobaptists countered, what about Acts 2:38-39, where Peter says that the promised the gift of the Spirit, "is for you, your children, and for all who are far off"? Coxe and others replied that not even Paedobaptists taught indiscriminate baptism of "all who were far off". The plain teaching of the New Testament was that baptism followed repentance and faith. That is what happened on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:41-42. Baptism was not therefore to be extended to the infant children of believers.

The theological deductions of the Paedobaptists from the Abrahamic covenant did not hold water (if you'll forgive the pun). Following the regulative principle, Particular Baptists held that worship ordinances such as Baptism and the Lord Supper had to be derived from definite  biblical commands, not supposed deductions from Scripture. Besides, if a 'deduction' contradicted an express command, the deduction was bound to be wrong. Particular Baptists certainly believed in making deductions from Scripture, but theological reasoning had to be subservient to the express teaching of God's Word. Particular Baptists were consistent in their application of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura to the matter of baptism, its mode and subjects. 

Deprived of 'signs and seals of the covenant' Paedobaptists alleged that children of Baptist parents were little better off than children of the ungodly. 'Not so' said the Particular Baptists . There is no evidence that children of believers baptised in infancy partake of the blessings of covenant of grace unless or until they come to faith in Christ. The same is true of children from Baptist families. Yet children from Christian homes have the great privilege of being exposed to the means of grace in their families and through their involvement in the life of the church. When the children of Baptist parents profess faith in Christ for themselves, they are duly baptised in line with the New Testament pattern.

Particular Baptists Churches published the First London Baptist Confession of Faith in 1644. A Second London Baptist Confession was agreed in 1672, but was published more widely in 1689. The second confession largely follows the wording of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession (1647) as revised in the Savoy Declaration (1658) of the Independents. (See Tabular Comparison of the three documents). The Baptists wished to be identified with mainstream Puritan Orthodoxy, while maintaining their distinctives on covenant theology, the church and Baptism.

John Owen was a key figure in drawing up the Savoy Declaration. The Particular Baptists agreed with his position on the covenants and also that the church should be a gathering of 'visible saints'. The inconsistency between the Independents' doctrine of the church and their Paedobaptism would later lead to the 'Halfway Covenant' controversy. This was over the status of unconverted children of believers in the Congregational Churches of the New World. Should they be admitted to the Lord's Supper, for example? No less than Johnathan Edwards would come a cropper on that one.

Interestingly, the original Particular Baptists emerged from Independency, taking Congregational principles one step further to embrace believers' baptism. Despite often being painted with the same brush, Particular Baptists had little in common theologically with their European Anabaptist counterparts. They were resolutely Reformed in soteriology rather than Arminian. Treading the same path, I was converted in a Congregational Church and was a Paedobaptist before embracing Reformed Baptist convictions. 

Anyway, besides Nehemiah Coxe, Renihan also gives detailed attention to the views of other Particular Baptists such as pioneers Andrew Ritor and John Spilsbury, and later writers, Philip Cary and Benjamin Keach, teasing out some of the nuances of their positions on the covenants and baptism.

The Particular Baptist divines of the Puritan period were fine theologians who demonstrated a clear grasp of the issues at stake as they engaged in polemics with Paedobaptists and sought to develop their own constructive theological proposals. Contemporary Reformed Baptists would do well to learn from the insights of their illustrious forebears.

As the debate on baptism rumbles on in our own day it can sometimes seem like our Presbyterian friends have the weight of theological argument on their side, while Baptists hurl back a few well-chosen proof texts. Renihan has demonstrated that the Particular Baptist position has a good pedigree within the Reformed family. Indeed, it could be advanced that the Baptist stance represents Reformed covenant theology in its purest and most consistent form.

Renihan's mastery of the primary sources is admirable as he takes in the sweep of Reformed thought from Calvin and Bullinger through to Coxe and Keach. Historical theology at its best retrieves the riches of past theological reflection to help the church understand the teaching of Holy Scripture more deeply and accurately in the present. Renihan's title is a great example of historical theology at its best. But there are still unanswered biblical and theological questions. Cameron, Owen and the Particular Baptists regarded the Sinai covenant as a covenant of works that was subservient to the covenant of grace. I agree that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were not administrations of the covenant of grace, but does that mean the the old covenant was in fact a post-fall covenant of works? I'm not so sure. One for a future blog post, perhaps? [Two, actually on the Old covenant and the covenant of works and the covenant of grace respectively - GD].

Be that as it may, Samuel D. Renihan's highly informative and engaging work throws important light on one of the biggest questions in Christian theology. Namely, how are we to construe the relationship between the old and new covenants? As Paul taught, the old covenant had 'a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ' (Colossians 2:17). The Particular Baptist tradition enables us to see with clear vision that in Christ we have the substance of a better covenant, established on better promises.