JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY:

Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

Richard C. Barcellos*

John Owen was a giant in the theological world of seventeenth-century England. He is possibly the greatest English theologian ever. His learning was deep and his writings thorough and profound. He has left the Christian Church a legacy few have equaled in volume, fewer yet in content. In saying this, however, we must also recognize that some things Owen said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear contradictory if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.

If we read some of the difficult sections of Owen?s writings without understanding his comprehensive thought and the theological world in which he wrote, or in a superficial manner, some statements may seem to mean things they do not. When this is done, authors are misunderstood and sometimes, subsequent theological movements are aligned with them without substantial and objective warrant. Two instances of this involve John Owen and New Covenant Theology (NCT).

John Reisinger claims that Owen viewed the Old Covenant[1] as ?a legal/works covenant.?[2] He says:

This covenant was conditional because it was a legal/works covenant that promised life and threatened death. Israel failed to earn the blessings promised in the covenant. But under the New Covenant, the Church becomes the Israel of God and all her members are kings and priests (a kingdom of priests). Christ, as our Surety (Heb. 7:22), has kept the Old Covenant for us and earned every blessing it promised.[3]

The reader of Owen?s treatise on the Old and New Covenants (in his Hebrews commentary) will quickly realize that Reisinger does not give the full picture of Owen?s position. 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,[4] something Reisinger emphatically denies.[5] Moreover, Owen did not teach that Christ ?kept the Old Covenant for us and earned every blessing it promised.?[6] 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.[7] According to Owen, what Christ kept for us was the original Adamic covenant of works, not the Old Covenant as an end in itself. Owen says: ?But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator.?[8]

Reisinger appears to make the Old Covenant the first covenant of works, something Owen clearly denies.[9] Reisinger also appears to make the Old Covenant contain in itself the promise of eternal life and the threat of eternal condemnation, thus necessitating Christ?s obedience to it.[10] Owen denies both of these ideas, saying:

This covenant [Sinai] 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 first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was ?the ministry of condemnation,? 2 Cor. iii. 9; for ?by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.? And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto 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.[11]

Using Owen as Reisinger does may lead some to think that Owen and Reisinger are one on the nature of the Old Covenant. But this is far from the truth. It must be granted, of course, that Owen and Reisinger agree in some aspects of the Old Covenant, though even this acknowledgement must be qualified carefully. Both teach that the Old Covenant was made with Israel, was a temporary covenant, and was abrogated by the New Covenant, though Reisinger has some inconsistencies in his position. Both teach that the Old Covenant was not merely an administration of the covenant of grace and deny the ?one covenant two administration? motif of other covenant theologians.[12] Both view the Decalogue as a unit as abrogated under the New Covenant; however, Owen does so in a relative and highly qualified manner (see below), while Reisinger does so in an absolute manner.[13]

Another NCT advocate, Tom Wells, claims that Reisinger ?has adopted John Owen?s view of the Mosaic and New covenants, without adding Owen?s ?creation ordinance? view of the Sabbath.?[14] Wells also claims that Owen held a mediating position on the relationship between the Mosaic and New Covenants and that Owen?s position is substantially that of Reisinger and hence, of NCT.[15] Wells defines what he means by a mediating position when he says:

The mediating position is as follows: a law of any kind may be the property of more than one covenant, but no covenant is still in force in any way after it has reached its end. Applied to the present discussion that means this: many (indeed all) of the moral commands of the Mosaic Covenant reappear in the Law of Christ. But they do not do so because they are part of the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant. That covenant, with every one of its laws and with every demand it lays on anyone whatsoever, has passed away forever. That was John Owen?s position, and that is the position of John Reisinger. It has also been the position of many others.[16]

In Sinclair Ferguson?s John Owen on the Christian Life, cited by Wells in the Reisinger pamphlet, Ferguson also calls Owen?s position on the Old Covenant a mediating position.[17] But Ferguson?s explanation of Owen?s mediating position does not have to do with the relationship between the law of the Old Covenant and the Law of Christ (as per Wells above). In fact, Ferguson does not even discuss this matter in this section of his book. Instead, Ferguson?s understanding of Owen?s mediating position has to do with the nature and function of the Old Covenant and its relation to the Adamic covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the New Covenant. Unlike others, Owen did not believe that the Old Covenant was a covenant of works in itself or simply an administration of the covenant of grace. In Ferguson?s words:

Sinai should not then be thought of as the covenant of works; but Sinai does involve a renewal of the principles which partly constituted the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Sinai covenant cannot be thought of as the covenant of grace.[18]

His [Owen?s] conclusion then is that the Sinaitic covenant revived the commands, sanctions and promises of the covenant of works, and that when the apostle Paul disputes about works or law-righteousness it is the renovation of the Edenic covenant in the Sinaitic covenant he has in mind. Sinai therefore is a ?particular, temporary covenant ? and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.?[19]

It appears that what Wells means by Owen?s mediating position and what Ferguson means is different.[20] Ferguson means that Owen was midway between those who taught that the Old Covenant was the covenant of works and those who taught that it was the covenant of grace. Owen taught neither. Wells concentrates on the introduction of moral law from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant and how that is done with the Old Covenant abolished.

Using the phrase ?mediating position? as Wells does may cause confusion. By using Owen?s ?mediating position? (as he defines it), Wells? attempts to clear Reisinger of accusations of doctrinal antinomianism. By referencing Ferguson (and even Ferguson?s use of the phrase ?mediating position?),[21] however, Wells allows his readers to assume that he and Ferguson mean the same thing. But this is not the case.

Owen did not view the Old Covenant merely as an administration of the covenant of grace. He did not avow the ?one covenant two administrations? motif of many of his contemporaries.[22] He viewed it as a distinct, subservient covenant with a limited and temporary purpose.[23] He saw within it a revival of the Edenic covenant of works,[24] superadded to the promises of grace.[25] He also viewed it as abolished by the New Covenant.[26] Hence, Owen?s mediating position put him between those who held that the Old Covenant was the covenant of works and those who held that it was the covenant of grace.[27] But his mediating position is not a forerunner to Reisinger and NCT.

In claiming that Reisinger ?has adopted John Owen?s view of the Mosaic and New covenants, without adding Owen?s ?creation ordinance? view of the Sabbath,?[28] Wells leads his readers to believe that the only difference between Owen and Reisinger (and NCT) on these issues is Owen?s creation-based Sabbath position. But this is untrue. Owen and Reisinger (and NCT) do not agree on many issues related to the nature and functions of the Old Covenant.

One place where this especially is so concerns the function of the Decalogue in Owen?s thought. Wells claims that Owen and Reisinger both hold that once a covenant, and the laws attached to it, has run its course, then ?that covenant, with every one of its laws and with every demand it lays on anyone whatsoever, has passed away forever.?[29] For Reisinger and NCT, this means that the Decalogue as a unit, including its Sabbath, has passed away forever and that if any of its laws are binding on New Covenant Christians, then they must reappear in the law of Christ.[30] This is the standard NCT position. But is this what Owen teaches? If Reisinger ?has adopted John Owen?s view of the Mosaic and New covenants, without adding Owen?s ?creation ordinance? view of the Sabbath,?[31] and Reisinger teaches that the Decalogue as a unit, along with its Sabbath, has been abrogated in all senses by the New Covenant, then we should find this teaching in Owen as well. In fact, if Wells? claim is true, then the only way that Owen can have the Sabbath functioning under the New Covenant is either to base it solely upon its status as creation ordinance or to contradict himself. But, Owen does neither. He does not base the perpetuity of the Sabbath on its status as a creation ordinance alone, nor does he contradict himself by smuggling the Decalogue into the New Covenant against his principles.

Simply put, Wells, like Reisinger, has overstated his case. In doing so, he reveals that he misunderstands Owen on more than one front, even attributing a position to him that he did not hold. Without warrant he claims that Reisinger ?has adopted Owen?s view of the Mosaic and New covenants, without adding Owen?s ?creation ordinance? view of the Sabbath.?[32] And he forces Owen to either base the Sabbath on creation alone or contradict himself by introducing it into the New Covenant on other grounds also, something which, in fact, Owen does repeatedly (see below).

Against this background, the remainder of this article attempts to show the following:

(1)    How Owen defined the abrogation of Old Covenant law.

(2)    That Owen, late in his writing career, taught the perpetuity of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant, including its Sabbath, while adhering to his view of the abrogation of Old Covenant law.

(3)    That Owen?s interpretation and application of Matt. 5:17 preclude the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit from the New Covenant

(4)    That Owen held to the multifunctional utility of the Decalogue as expressed in the Savoy Declaration of Faith (Savoy). In this he agreed with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2^nd LCF), and the writings of the Reformers and Post-Reformation Reformed Scholastics. In other words, Owen taught the transcovenantal utility of the Decalogue, like others before and after him.

In displaying these things, we will see that Owen?s earlier and later writings fully agree, proving that Owen did not change his views or contradict himself. We will also see that Owen stands in the mainstream of both Puritan, confessional theology and the theology of Reformation and Post-Reformation Reformed Scholasticism. And we will see that Wells and Reisinger misunderstood Owen on some very crucial points.

The Idea of Abrogation in Owen and Others

Owen teaches that the whole law of Moses (even the moral element) has been abrogated. This is the NCT position and is probably why Wells says that Reisinger holds Owen?s view. In this section, we will look at some of the statements that led Wells to conclude this. Commenting on Heb. 7:18, 19, Owen says:

I have proved before that ?the commandment? in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with ?the law? in the next. And ?the law? there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].[33]

Commenting on Heb. 7:12, Owen says:

It was the whole ?law of commandments contained in ordinances,? or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood [emphasis added].[34]

Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent [emphasis added].[35]

Owen, of course, carefully qualifies what he means by the whole law and its abrogation. Commenting again on Heb. 7:18, 19, he says:

Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by ?the command? in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[36]

Again, Owen says:

By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church [emphasis added].[37]

This comes in a section in which Owen is showing how ?the whole law may be considered ?absolutely in itself? or ?with respect ?unto the end for which it was given? or ?unto the persons unto whom it was given.?[38] He calls the law ?the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people of Horeb. For the apostle takes ?the commandment,? and ?the law? for the same in this chapter; and ?the covenant,? in the next, for the same in them both.?[39] Owen is concentrating on the whole Mosaic law, i.e., it is the law in its totality as it related to God?s Old Covenant people that has been abrogated. Thus the abrogation of the law in Owen refers to the whole law as it functioned in Old Covenant Israel.[40]

This understanding of abrogation is found in Calvin also. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law under the New Covenant in no way abrogates the Decalogue in every sense of the word. Commenting on Rom. 7:2, Calvin says:

?but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection [emphasis added].[41]

It is important to note that ?the term ?law? for Calvin may mean (1) the whole religion of Moses?; (2) the special revelation of the moral law to the chosen people, i.e., chiefly the Decalogue and Jesus? summary?; or (3) various bodies of civil, judicial, and ceremonial statutes.?[42] Calvin says, ?I understand by the word ?law? not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God through Moses.?[43] Calvin views the law in various ways. So when he speaks of abrogation, he does not intend absolute abrogation, but relative abrogation in terms of the law considered not in itself, but in its redemptive-historically conditioned use. Commenting on the concept of abrogation in Calvin, one Calvin scholar said, ?the Law was not in itself abrogated by the Christ, but only the slavery and malediction attaching to it under the ancient Covenant.?[44] According to Calvin, therefore, the Moral Law has not been abrogated, as such. What has been abrogated or fulfilled in Christ for believers is its function as a curse. ?The law itself is not abolished for the believer, but only the maledictio legis? [F]or Calvin the law is related above all to believers for whom, however, the maledictio is removed.?[45]

In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the extent that Christ abrogated the law and the extent that it is still in force, Zacharias Ursinus says:

The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience [emphasis added].[46]

The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not [emphasis added].[47]

But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law [emphasis added].[48]

A similar understanding of abrogation is found in Francis Turretin. In vol. 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin entitles chapter XXIII as follows:

THE ABROGATION OF THE MORAL LAW

XXIII.     Whether the moral law is abrogated entirely under the New Testament. Or whether in a certain respect it still pertains to Christians. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Antinomians.[49]

Notice Turretin?s careful qualifications (i.e., ?entirely? and ?in a certain respect?). While discussing the abrogation of the moral law, he says, ?In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not.?[50] Then, after listing three senses in which the law has been abrogated, he says, ?But the question only concerns its directive use?whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.?[51]

Turretin does what we have seen in others. He has a view of abrogation which both includes the Decalogue and does not include the Decalogue. This is because the law can be viewed from different theological and redemptive-historical vantage points.

Finally, concerning the lex Mosaica [law of Moses], which, representing the view of Protestant Scholasticism, he defines as the moral law as given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, Richard Muller says, ?As a norm of obedience belonging to the [covenant of grace], the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament.?[52] Muller recognizes the fact that Protestant Scholastics considered the law in different ways. Therefore, when we examine their statements about abrogation, we must take this into consideration. If we do not, we may take their statements on the abrogation of the law in an absolute manner and make them mean something they did not.

We have seen that Owen?s view of abrogation was similar to Calvin?s, Ursinus?, Turretin?s, and Protestant Scholasticism?s. With them, he carefully and repeatedly qualifies what he means by abrogation. He stands clearly within Reformed orthodoxy at this point. His view of abrogation neither necessarily demands the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit in all senses under the New Covenant, nor is it contradicted by the inclusion of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant. Though with his own nuances and emphases, Owen?s view is substantially that of others in his day. It was Calvin?s, Ursinus?s, Turretin?s, Protestant Scholasticism?s, as well as that of the WCF, the Savoy, and the 2^nd LCF.[53]

It appears that Wells takes the concept of abrogation absolutely. Hence, he cannot allow the Decalogue to function in more ways than Old Covenant law, unless its individual commands reappear in the law of Christ (New Testament). This leads to its elimination from the New Covenant, which, of course, is the position of NCT. From what has been shown above, however, Wells? understanding of Owen on abrogation is not necessary. Others held similar views and yet did not eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant.

From the evidence presented, Owen must be understood to view abrogation as both including and not including the Decalogue, depending on how it is viewed. If this is the case, then his understanding of abrogation, though with its own nuances and emphases, has clear and ample precedent in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, and Protestant Scholasticism.

The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

In his Hebrews commentary, Owen teaches that Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3 refer to the Decalogue being written on the heart of New Covenant saints. Commenting on Heb. 9:5, he says:

This law, as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works; for it contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image, and nothing else. It was the whole of what God designed in our creation unto his own glory and our everlasting blessedness. What was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3.[54]

Consider these observations relevant to our subject. First, the law, in the context of Owen?s discussion, refers to the law contained on the tables of stone (i.e., the Decalogue). Second, Owen is considering the Decalogue ?as unto the substance of it? and not necessarily as to the form and/or function of it under the Old Covenant.[55] Third, he claims that the Decalogue ?was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.? Fourth, he claims that the Decalogue, as to the substance of it, ?contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image.? Fifth, he claims that ?what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally.? Sixth, he claims that ?what was in the tables of stone? (and written on the heart of man at creation) is that ?which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.? And finally, he references Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3. Owen, on this exegetical basis, clearly believed in the perpetuity (as to its substance) of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant.

Owen continues:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[56]

From this statement, the following observations also are relevant to our subject. First, Owen distinguishes between how the Decalogue functioned in the covenant of works and how it functions ?as a law and rule of obedience.? Second, he connects this law with God?s holiness and righteousness. In other words, Owen views the Decalogue as a perpetual ?law and rule of obedience? because it is related to God?s holiness and righteousness (i.e., his unchangeable nature).

Continuing, and concentrating on how Christ is the true ark (the antitype of the Old Covenant?s Ark of the Covenant), he says:

In his obedience unto God according unto the law he is the true ark, wherein the law was kept inviolate; that is, was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished, Matt. v. 17; Rom. viii. 3, x. 4. Hence by God?s gracious dealing with sinners, pardoning and justifying them freely, the law [i.e., Decalogue] is not disannulled, but established, Rom. iii. 31. That this was to be done, that without it no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable, was the principal design of God to declare in all this service; without the consideration thereof it was wholly insignificant. This was the original mystery of all these institutions, that in and by the obedience of the promised seed, the everlasting, unalterable law should be fulfilled.[57]

Several observations are worthy of note. First, in the context of Owen?s discussion, the law is that which was placed in the ark (i.e., the Decalogue as written by God on stone tablets). Second, he says that this law was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished by Christ. Third, he says that the obedience of Christ to this law effects our justification. Fourth, he says that the law is not disannulled but established. Fifth, he teaches that all of this was typified in the Ark of the Covenant. And finally, he says that the law is everlasting and unalterable, probably due to its reflection of God?s holiness and righteousness.[58]

Owen?s use of Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3 was not novel. Others who held to his basic understanding of abrogation argued for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant on the same exegetical grounds.[59]

In his The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, while discussing the reason that God ?engraved them [Ten Commandments] with his own finger,?[60] Herman Witsius says:

Both because they contained the declaration or testimony of the divine will, and because the preservation of them by the Israelites, was a testimony of the law given to, and received by them at Sinai. This writing also signified the purpose of God, to write the law on the hearts of his elect, according to the promise of the covenant of grace, Jer. xxxi. 33.

Nor is it for nothing that God himself would be the author of this writing, without making use of any man or angel. For this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit, when he says, that the tablets were written with the finger of God, Exod. xxxi. 18. and that the writing was the writing of God, Exod. xxxii. 16. The reasons were, 1^st. To set forth the pre-eminence of this law, which he permitted to be written by Moses. 2dly. To intimate, that it is the work of God alone, to write the law on the heart, which is what neither man himself, nor the ministers of God can do, but the Spirit of God alone. And thus believers are ?the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,? 2 Cor. iii. 3.[61]

Witsius goes on to discuss the effects of God?s grace, saying, ?But the grace of God will cancel that writing of sin, and in the room of it, will the graver of his most Holy Spirit, engrave on the same table of our heart the characters of his law.?[62]

The context is clear. Witsius sees Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3 as testimonies to the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. As shown above, Owen used these texts in a very similar context and with the same practical result.

End of Partial Sample