Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Old Offer under the Old Covenant, Part 2

THESIS VIII:  Passover was a rite instituted by God, in which once each year throughout the individual families of the Jews a yearling lamb was sacrificed, and, with certain ceremonies added, was eaten, for a memorial of the blessing of deliverance out of Egypt, and the sealing of the promise of grace concerning the remission of sins through and because of the sacrifice of the Messiah to come.

EXPLANATION:  I.  See the history of the institution of Passover in Exodus 12, whence also are able to be learned the ceremonies used in this sacrament and prescribed by God.  Now, the expression of Scripture concerning this sacrament also is to be noted.  Passover properly signifies the passing over of the slaying Angel, who in Egypt, when he killed all the firstborn of the Egyptians in one night, passing over the houses of the Israelites, the posts of which were sprinkled with the blood of a slain lamb, and was leaving behind the first born of the Israelites safe and unharmed.  Each year, the Jews were recalling the memory of this blessing, in each of their households, with a lamb slain and eaten, and with certain ceremonies added; and they were doing this by a specific command of God.  Whence this whole action is called Passover.  And, because that slain lamb was a sign of the passing over of the slaying Angel, Scripture attributes to it the name of that passing over, and calls the lamb the Passover, and by Passover signifies the lamb:  as in Exodus 12:11, ye shall eat it (namely, the little sheep, or lamb); it is Jehovah’s Passover.  But the lamb that he here calls the Passover improperly and sacramentally, in verse 27 he calls the same the sacrifice of the Passover:  it is the sacrifice of Jehovah’s Passover.  Often in Scripture the Passover is also said to be slain, where by Passover is necessarily to be understood the lamb that was slain.  Thus in Luke 22:7, the Passover must be killed.  See Exercitation 82.

II.  Now, that the paschal lamb was a type and sacrament of the coming Messiah, even after the likeness of a lamb to be slain to acquire for us eternal redemption, is manifest from the Scripture of the New Testament.  For, that the bones of the crucified Christ were not broken, happened, so that the antitype might correspond to the paschal lamb as its type:  as John expressly testifies, John 19:36.  To express that same type, Christ is also called the lamb, John 1:29, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world:  and the Passover, 1 Corinthians 5:7, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.

III.  A question is here agitated between the Papists, the Lutherans, and us, concerning the agreement and differences between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments.

We the Orthodox teach, that the old sacraments differ from the new:

(1.)  In the external symbols:  which were one thing in circumcision and the paschal lamb, another in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

(2.)  In external rites:  which were diverse according to the variety and diversity of the substantial symbols.

(3.)  In the easy of use, which is greater in the new sacraments than in the old.

(4.)  In the mode and clarity of the signification.  The old signify Messiah coming; the new, Messiah exhibited:  in the former the clarity of the promise and signification is less; in the latter, more, because of the more express sacramental words.

(5.)  In duration.  The old had to endure unto the first advent of Christ or the incarnation of the Son of God.  The new are going to endure unto the second coming at the final judgment or end of the world.

(6.)  The extent of the object.  The old were obliging only the Jewish posterity of Abraham.  The new pertain to all nations.

But we also assert that the sacraments of both Testaments agree:

(1.)  In the efficient; both have God as author, and particularly Christ, the sole lawgiver and king of the Church.

(2.)  In the principal matter signified, which is Christ, with all His benefits.

(3.)  In the relation of the external symbols to the thing signified.

(4.)  In the instrument of apprehending and applying the thing signified, which is faith.

(5.)  In the end and effect, which is the signifying, the sacrament exhibition, and the sealing, of the thing signified, namely, Christ and His benefits.

But it is not here controverted between our adversaries and us (as some incorrectly form the state of the controversy):  Whether there be one and the same rationale of the sacraments of the Old and the New Testaments?  For, we do not assert this in a simply way.  But rather:  Whether the rationale of all in signifying and sealing the matter signified, that is, Christ with all His benefits, be the same?

We uphold at this point the affirmative in the following arguments:

(1.)  God, with respect to necessities, provided no less for the elect of the Israelitish Church, than of the Christian Church.

Therefore, God did not invest less power in the word and sacraments of the Israelitish Church, than in the word and sacraments of the Christian Church.  Therefore, since of old He both signified and exhibited the Messiah to come with all His benefits by the word:  why might He not do the same by the sacraments, which are the visible word?

(2.)  The sacraments of the Old Testament were seals of righteousness, and supports of faith in Messiah:  as it is evident from the example of circumcision, Romans 4:11.

Therefore, the efficacy of those was the same as that of the new.

(3.)  One and the same is the communion of all believers of both Testaments with Christ.

Therefore, the instruments of this communion, among which also are the sacraments, are of the same efficacy in both Testaments.

The rationale of the consequence:  For, if the instruments of the Old Testament were of less efficacy, God would not have pursued believers under the old with the same affection, wherewith He pursues believers under the New Testament:  neither would the communion of Israelites and of Christians have been equally close:  which is false.

(4.)  The ancients, eating manna in the desert, as a sacrament, ate the same spiritual food with us:  and they, drinking the water of the rock, drank the same spiritual drink with us, 1 Corinthians 10:2-4.

Therefore, the efficacy of the old Sacraments is not less than of the new.

Our adversaries take exception:  The ancients ate the same spiritual food among themselves, namely, the manna in the desert:  but not the same with us.

Response:  It is evident from the context, that the new sacraments are compared with the old by Paul, and the citizens of the old Church with the citizens of the Church of the New Testament.  Whence the gloss concerning the same spiritual meat among them is plainly weak, and inept to prove point of the Apostle.  Therefore, he understands the same spiritual meat with us, that is, truly a sacrament of spiritual food, which had no less dignity that the new sacrament of the same food.  The account of spiritual drink is the same.

This matter is also supported by the fact that the names of the old and new Sacraments are repeatedly interchanged in Scripture, 1 Corinthians 5:7; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11, 12.

Graver[1] takes exception in his Absurdis, page 167:

If the Fathers of the Old Testament ate the same food with us, and drank the same spiritual drink, it follows that either we under the New Testament eat Manna, and drink of the rock in the wilderness; or the impious Israelites under the Old Testament by faith ate the body, and drank the blood, of Christ.  But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The hypothetical is proven:  Because Paul speaks universally of Israelites, many of whom were not pleasing to God.[2]  But the Israelites under the Old Testament ate Manna; but we, the flesh of Christ.

Response:  The hypothetical is denied.  The proof is inconsequent:  for this food is to be distinguished:  and the eating is to be distinguished.  The same is the rationale of the drink and of the drinking.

The food is either the thing signified, namely, the flesh of Christ, or the sacramental sign and symbol.

The eating is either sacramental, which belongs to the sacramental symbol, and is accomplished by the mouth:  or Spiritual, which belongs to the thing signified, and is accomplished by faith alone, yet assisted by the sacramental symbol.

Therefore, the Israelites ate the same elemental food with us, not materially, for they ate manna, but we bread:  but formally, because they, just as much as we, ate the sacramental Symbol of the flesh of Christ.

Then they all also ate the flesh of Christ Sacramentally; and that with the mouth:  because they all ate the sacrament and Symbol of the Flesh.

But not all, but at least some, and indeed fewer, ate Spiritually, by faith.  Whence many were not pleasing to God:  because many ate only with the mouth and sacramentally, without faith.  Concerning the same food, see Exercitation 82.

(5.)  Contempt of the sacraments of the Old Testament was no less damnable, than contempt of the sacraments of the New Testament:  as it is evident from the example of circumcision, Genesis 17:14.

Therefore, God made bountiful provision for His people through the old, no less than through the new.

(6.)  To the sacrifices of the ancients Scripture attributes the expiation of sins.

Therefore, it no less attributes it to the sacraments:  and hence the same efficacy is applicable to the sacraments of the ancients, as to the new.

(7.)  Circumcision in the Old Testament, as the thing signified, exhibited, and sealed, had the circumcision of the heart, Romans 2:28, 29.

Therefore, it was of no less efficacy to believers, than baptism under the New Testament.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because baptism signifies, exhibits, and seals the same thing signified.

IV.  The arguments of our adversaries for the contrary opinion are these:

(1.)  The circumcised Jews were excelling the nations in only one thing, namely, that they had the law and oracles of God.

Therefore, circumcision did not justify the Jews:  as baptism is said to wash away sins.

The antecedent belongs to Paul, Romans 3:1, 2.

Response:  The antecedent is denied.  Neither is it proven from the passage alleged.  For, even if Paul in that passage expresses only one prerogative of the Jews, he does not thereby deny that there are others, which Scripture reviews in other passages.  And who, I ask, would believe that this was the only, or even the principal, prerogative of believing Jews above the Greeks, that they had God’s law and oracles, which were common to unbelievers with believers?

They insist:

Works of the law do not justify.

Circumcision was a work of the law.

Therefore, circumcision did not justify.

Response:  The conclusion, rightly understood, is able to be granted.  Circumcision did not justify, as a work of the law, with respect to merit, or as a physical cause:  but neither in this way does baptism justify, or cleanse from sins:  but as a sacrament signifying, exhibiting, and sealing the benefit of justification:  which is applicable both to circumcision and to baptism.

(2.)  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:19, that circumcision is nothing.

Therefore, he withdraws from it all efficacy, with respect to justification.

Response to the antecedent:  The Apostle speaks concerning circumcision now abrogated:  the use of which not only profited nothing, but also was quite hurtful.

(3.)  The sacraments of the Old Testament were only types of the sacraments of the New Testament.

Therefore, they were not of the same efficacy.

Response:  The antecedent is false.

They insist:

But the law had a shadow of good things to come and types.[3]

Response:  What then?  The body of those shadows was not the sacraments of the New Testament, but the things signified by the new sacraments.

(4.)  The sacraments of the Old Testament were only signs signifying and adumbrating things of the New Testament, that is, Christ Himself.

Therefore, they were not of the same efficacy, as the sacraments of the New Testament.

The antecedent is proven:  Hebrews 10:1, the law has a shadow of good things to come, not the express form of the things.  Colossians 2:17, The old ceremonies are said to be shadows of things to come.

The antecedent is denied.  The sacraments of the Old Testament were signs both signifying, and sacramentally offering and sealing, no less than the sacraments of the New Testament.

The proof from the Epistle to the Hebrews and Colossians is inconsequent.  For, if you take the law for the Old Testament, and that whole Economy of God in promoting and procuring the salvation of the elect, and you say that in the Old Testament was only a shadow, even with respect to believers:  it will follow that believers under the Old Testament were not justified and sanctified by Christ, but only by the shadow of Christ:  which is obviously false and contrary to Scripture.  The law is said to have had a shadow of things to come, not that under the law faith apprehended not the very things, signified, exhibited, and sealed in the external ceremonies:  for thus it would not have been ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, the substance of things hoped for, Hebrews 11:1, nor would the ancients have been saved in the same manner as we are, with the Apostle contradicting, Acts 15:11.  But that the external ceremonies of the sacraments and sacrifices were not the very things, because of which eternal life was granted:  and that under the Old Testament Messiah was not yet exhibited in the flesh, but only to be exhibited, who now has been exhibited in the New.  Whence the ancient shadows, figuring the Messiah to come, have been abrogated.

(5.)  Under the Old Testament the body and blood of Christ did not yet exist.

Therefore, they were not able to be exhibited by the old sacraments.

Response:  The consequence is denied.  For, thus it would follow, that they were not able to be apprehended even by faith.  But faith makes to exist things hoped for, and reveals things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.  See Exercitation 83.

THESIS IX:  This old offer, with respect to the promise of eternal life, under condition of the obedience of faith in Messiah to come, with the promise of this obedience in turn on the part of man, is called the old covenant.

EXPLANATION:  I.  This covenant lasted for four thousand years, from the fall of Adam to the birth of Christ:  which time is distinguished into three intervals.

(1.)  From the fall of Adam to the calling of Abraham, which contains about two thousand and twenty years.

(2.)  From the calling of Abraham to Moses, which contains about four hundred and thirty-three years.

(3.)  From Moses to the exhibition of Messiah, which contains about one thousand, five hundred and seventeen.

II.  According to the diversity of these intervals, the form of the administration of this covenant was diverse and threefold.

In the first interval, from the fall of Adam to Abraham, the whole form of the covenant was expressed by God in that promise:  The Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent.[4]

Now, at that time the covenant was universal, insofar as it was not restricted to a certain nation:  although there were very few men that fulfilled the condition of the covenant, that is, who set their faith upon the coming Messiah.  Whence, because of the impiety of the whole world, in the one thousand and six hundredth year from the creation of the world, God wiped out all men by a flood, with only eight men excepted, Noah, his wife, and Noah’s three sons, and their wives.[5]  To Noah God made the first mention of covenant, Genesis 9:9.

In the second interval, from Abraham to Moses, the form of the covenant was more perfect, when God converted Abraham from his impiety and idolatry, and promised him the blessing of the nations in his seed, that is, in the Messiah to come, and confirmed this promise by the sacrament of circumcision.  To this also was pertain the land of promise.

The history is described in Genesis 12-17.

At that time the covenant was restricted to the family of Abraham and his posterity the Jews, with all the remaining nations of the world left out.

In the third interval, from Moses to the birth of Christ, this covenant was reduced to the form of a Testament, when through rites of sacrifices instituted in a new order and way, not through the sacramental ceremony of the Passover, the sacrifice of the coming Messiah was represented, and so the promise of the gracious remission of sins and eternal life was confirmed to the Jews.

In this third interval the blessings of Messiah were also extraordinarily represented in various ways, and sealed to the faithful.  (1.)  Through the deliverance out of Egypt, Matthew 2:15.  (2.)  Through the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness, John 3:14.  (3.)  Through the twofold cloud, under which the Israelites proceeded in the wilderness, 1 Corinthians 10:2.  (4.)  Through the crossing of the Red Sea, in the same passage.  (5.)  Through the manna from heaven, and the water from the rock, 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4.

III.  And this was the old covenant of grace.  In addition to this, there was also the covenant of works, or legal covenant, wherein God promised to me eternal life, under condition of perfect obedience rendered to the law, with a threat of eternal death annexed, if he should fail to render perfect obedience.  God settled this covenant with the first men in the state of integrity, Genesis 2:17, and repeated the same in the wilderness of Sinai, when the people were led out of Egypt by Moses, Exodus 19; 20.

The use and end of this covenant was, not that men might be saved through it; but that men, acknowledging their sins, and despairing of the fulfillment of the condition of the law, might flee to the covenant of grace, and might implore the mercy of God through and because of the Messiah:  in which sense the law is said to be a schoolmaster leading to Christ, Galatians 3:24.

IV.  The Papists and Socinians at this point roar at us over the old covenant of grace, the force and dignity of which both enervate, although not in the same way.

The Papists teach, that under the old covenant the souls of dead believers were not admitted to eternal life and blessedness, but, being kept from heaven, were relegated to limbo, a place next to purgatory, and were detained there until the resurrection of Christ and His ascension into heaven.

The Papist invent this without Scripture and against Scripture.  How, I ask, will they prove that those great luminaries of the ancient Church, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, David, and the chorus of the holy Prophets, were shut out of heaven, and thrust into a house bordering on the underworld?  Enoch and Elijah were received into heaven even in their bodies,[6] and shall we say that the souls of other saints were cast down to limbo?  If believers under the Old Testament pursued the remission of sins, and were truly sanctified through faith in the coming Messiah, there is no reason why should their souls be excluded from heaven.  Let it be observed, that the Apostle teaches, Colossians 1:20, that through Christ all things are reconciled, which are on earth, and which are in heaven.  By those things that are in heaven, nothing is able to be understood suitably, except the souls of believers, deceased before Christ, received into heaven.  So also in Revelation 14:13, the Spirit proclaims them blessed that die in the Lord, blessed in such a way that they rest from their labors, and their works do follow them.  But believers under the Old Testament also died in the Lord, were indeed united and joined to the Lord through faith.  Whence it is also said, that Abraham saw the day of Christ and was glad, John 8:56.  Therefore, they also were blessed.  But there is no blessedness in limbo.  Neither did Abraham seek or expect limbo, bur rather a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, the heavenly Fatherland, Hebrews 11:10.  Abraham spoke with his dinner guest, not from limbo, but from blessed habitations, to which Lazarus was carried by Angels, Luke 16:22.  So also the soul of the thief was carried with Christ into Paradise, and that before the resurrection, Luke 23:43.

An objection is brought from Hebrews 9:8, where the Apostle says, with the first tabernacle yet standing before Christ entered into the heavenly sanctuary, the way into the heavenly sanctuary was not yet made manifest.  Whence they gather, that under the Old Testament heaven was closed to the souls of believers, which was also the opinion of certain of the Fathers.

Response:  The Consequence is denied.  It is one thing, for the way into the sanctuary not yet to be made manifest, well-trodden, and known to many; it is another, for the sanctuary to be completely closed, with no one entering into it:  because even by a way not yet solemnly made manifest, and not well-trodden, some were nevertheless able to be admitted.  Next, even if the way was not yet made manifest through the Mosaic sacrifices; just as also sins were not remitted because of those:  yet yet it was open to believers through the sacrifice of Messiah to come, through and because of which they also pursued the remission of sins.

V.  The Socinians teach, that the Fathers under the old covenant and testament had only corporal promises, not spiritual:  and that eternal life was not promised to them.  Which is not so much error as madness.  For, if the things promised to the Fathers were not spiritual, and pertaining to eternal life:  certainly they did not apprehend them by faith:  for, what is not promised, that is not apprehended by faith:  if they apprehended not by faith, they were damned.  And who is so insane, that he might persuade himself that those most illustrious promises:  that the seed of the woman shall crush the head of the serpent;[7] that in thy seed all nations of the earth shall be blessed;[8] that I will be your God, and ye shall be my people;[9] I will betroth thee unto me forever;[10] etc.:  were only concerning bodily things.  Let two eminent passages be observed:  Acts 10:43, to Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.  And Acts 15:11, we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (namely, our Fathers).

An objection is brought out of Hebrews 8:6, where the new covenant is said to have been established upon better promises.  Therefore, there were only bodily promises in the old.

Response:  It does not follow.  The promises of the new covenant are called better, (1.)  absolutely, with respect to many bodily promises, which were in the old, than which spiritual promises are simply better, which were as abundant in the new, as bodily promises were in the old:  yet all in the Old were not bodily:  (2.)  comparatively:  they spiritual promises of the New Testament are in a certain manner better even than the spiritual promises of the Old:  because many are more illustrious, and more perfect in degree, than those.

Other say that the new covenant of grace is compared with the old legal covenant:  and they say that the promises of the former are better, because of the condition of faith; while the promises of the old have an annexed condition of perfect legal obedience, which was impossible.

[1] Albert Graver (1575-1617) was a German Lutheran theologian and churchman.  He was staunchly committed to the Formula of Concord, both defending it, and polemically assailing antagonists, especially the Reformed.  Graver was called the clypeus et gladius Lutheranismi.

[2] 1 Corinthians 10:5.

[3] Hebrews 10:1:  “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image (αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα) of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.”

[4] Genesis 3:15.

[5] Genesis 7:7, 13; 8:18; 1 Peter 3:15.

[6] Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11.

[7] Genesis 3:15.

[8] Genesis 22:18.

[9] See, for example, Leviticus 26:12.

[10] Hosea 2:19, 20.