Chapter 2 of The Law is Not of Faith is written by Dr. John Fesko, recently appointed professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary in California. Fesko desires “to take a comparative historical theological snapshot of two continental Reformed theologians” on the challenging issue of the place of the Mosaic covenant in the Scriptures. The two continental theologians Fesko culls out for comparative analysis are John Calvin and Herman Witsius. In doing so, Fesko hopes to show the continuity that existed between the two men regarding the Mosaic covenant despite coming from different periods.
Fesko then tackles the daunting task of summarizing both Calvin and Witisus’ views on the Mosaic covenant, beginning with Calvin.
Fesko helpfully points out that in Calvin the term “law” can mean several things, cautionary the reader to carefully distinguish whether Calvin has the moral law or the law as the Mosaic covenant in view when the term is used.
From there, Fesko highlights Calvin’s firm believe that in every dispensation after the fall man has been saved by grace through faith in Christ. ”What changes, therefore, in the transition from the OT to the NT is not the covenant, but rather the form or administration of the covenant (2.11.13)” (pg. 29). However, with the dispensation of Moses, “there are two separate covenants, the foedus legale and foedus evangelicum, the ministries of Moses and Christ (2.11.4) (pg. 30). Fesko explains that for Calvin the law functions within the foedus legale to call us to what is right, what is forbidden; and to promise reward to the keepers of righteousness and to threaten those who break it with punishment. ”Calvin, therefore, sees the Mosaic covenant characterized by the promise of eternal life which can be obtained Israel’s obediences, yet because of their sin, Israel is unable to fulfill the requirements of the covenant–only Christ was able to to this. In this sense, then, the foedus legale and foedus evangelicum are antithetical, in that they both extend the promise of salvation, the former through obedience and the latter through faith in Christ.” This antithetical nature, however, is not meant to imply that the OT saints were saved by works and not by grace. What distinguishes the OT saint from the NT saint is not “not the promise of the gospel, but ‘the diversity in the outward government,’ or the outward administration of the gospel” (pg. 32). The works principles present in the Mosaic covenant displays man’s inability to merit eternal life through obedience to the law and drives the sinner to Christ.
In Witsius, Fesko then argues, we see the same themes that exists in Calvin, but also some some important developments. The differences are seen in Witsius use of the doctrine of the covenant of works and his greater use of typology in his explanation of the Mosaic covenant (pg. 34).
After Calvin, Fesko says, there is a refinement of covenant theology in which the distinctions between pre and post fall covenants are sharpened. It is with these developments in mind that Fesko surveys Witsius on the relationship between the two covenants (works and grace). While recognizing important differences between the covenants of works and grace, “Witsius also explains that the covenant of grace may be further subdivided into two distinct economies, which he defines as the old and new testaments.” Like Calvin, Witsius argues that the substance of the covenant of grace is the same. What differs is what Witsius calls the “cicumstantials” of each economy. Though Witsius is prepared to say that the Mosaic covenant is legal in nature for reasons Fesko lists on page 36, “the telic goal of the threefold law finds its fulfillment in the person and work of Christ.”
Another prominent development in Witsius is seen the his use of typology in the Mosaic covenant. Witsius “argued along the same lines as Calvin that the Mosaic covenant vis-a-vis the ordo salutis functioned in the same way as to reveal sin and drive Israel to Christ” (pg. 36). ”The Mosaic covenant vis-a-vis the historia salutis, on the other hand, had a different aim. Witsius argued that the Mosaic covenant was a national covenant” (pg. 37) in which rewards where promised for obedience and punishment for disobedience, in which Israel could earn their salvation through obedience. Again, however, given man’s sinfulness, this highlighted man’s inability to keep the terms of the covenant.
Fesko argues that this fits in with Witsius’ understanding of typology in that he undersands Israel’s existence in the Promised Land as looking back to Adam’s probation in the garden, while also looking foward to Christ (pg. 37). Fesko then says, “Given this typological thrust of the Mosaic covenant, Witsius is prepared to say that the Sinai covenant is therefore neither exclusively of the covenant of works nor of grace. Rather, it is a national covenant of ’sincere piety’ that presupposes both covenants.”
Fesko then goes on to compare, in summary, Calvin and Witsius, highlight the commonalities and differences between the two (pg. 39-42).
Fesko’s concluding nicely summarizes the entire chapter, “So, then, whether in Calvin’s more grammatical-historical or Witsius’ more redemptive historical hermeneutic, one finds that both were making essentially the same point with different emphases: the Mosaic covenant is unique in that it is legal in nature, demonstrating vis-a-vis the ordo salutis man’s inability to fulfill the demands of the law, which drives man to Christ, and in terms of the historia salutis, painting a typological portrait of Christ’s person and work” (pg. 43).
Fesko’s contribution to this book is clearly and persuasively written. He tackles the task of summarizing Calvin and Witsius with ease and helpfully points out their differences as well as the developments in covenant theology that are evident in Witsius.
