1689 Federalism holds to a republicationistic view of the Mosaic Covenant. This means that 1689 federalists believe the covenant of works was republished in the Mosaic Covenant, that it was a covenant of works but not the covenant of works. How was it so? They believe that it was an exclusively temporal and external covenant of works for life and blessings in the land of Canaan. Further, they believe that faith is irrelevant to the Mosaic Covenant. This is the proper logical movement. Dr. Renihan has said as much in his 1689 Federalism work, The Mystery of Christ, where he states, “The obedience demanded [under the Mosaic Covenant] was an obedience an unbeliever could render” (p111). In other words, under the Mosaic Covenant one could obey God apart from faith, and, being that faith is supernaturally given by God, this also entails one could obey God even in the absence of the Holy Spirit. This is the logical implication of this proposition.
My contention is that this is a contradiction of what the New Testament says about the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, it’s impossible to “amen” the New Testament Scriptures and simultaneously subscribe to 1689 Federalism. One must choose between the two. Let’s demonstrate this with a few basic points.
The Wilderness Generation
First, the wilderness generation—the first of Israel to be under the Mosaic Covenant—were forbidden to enter Canaan because they were in unbelief (Hebrews 3:11-4:12). Specifically, they did not believe the gospel (Hebrews 4:2). This is corroborated by 1 Corinthians 10:5 which tells us that God was “not well pleased” with this generation. Compare this with Hebrews 11:6 which says that “without faith it is impossible” to please God. If God was not well pleased with them, it follows that they did not have faith. Jude offers a final confirmation when he says that the Lord “destroyed them that believed not” among the wilderness generation (Jude 1:5). Thus, unbelief is what barred them from the Mosaic Covenant blessing of Canaan. This means that faith—not naked works—was necessary to enter and possess Canaan. Joshua and Caleb are the only two (we know) of this generation that did enter the land. They are said to have followed the LORD fully (Numbers 14:24, 32:11-12). And they obviously only did so by faith. Entertaining any other possibility is absurd.
The Scriptures of Timothy
Second, when Paul addresses Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to make good use of the “holy scriptures,” he was first speaking of the Old Testament scriptures. Now, how much of the Old Testament either contained direct commandments related to the religious administration of the Mosaic Covenant, or was given during the time of its administration? Everything from Exodus 20 forward. In other words, only the book of Genesis and the first 19 chapters of Exodus are not either direct commandments of the Mosaic Covenant or contained within its administration. Think about that. This means that Paul is then commending a Bible to Timothy at the time that is 90% Mosaic Covenant, either directly or relatively. Further, Paul expects Timothy to use this Bible to preach and teach believers under the New Covenant. How is it, then, if the Mosaic Covenant is merely external that Timothy is to do so? It cannot be. It’s contradictory to on the one hand say, “The Mosaic Covenant was an exclusively temporal covenant of works” and on the other hand say, “Timothy, make use of the Mosaic Covenant scriptures to teach New Covenant believers and to equip yourself and your hearers to live godly lives in Christ Jesus.” It’s one or the other—not both.
The Scripture Itself
Third, the nature of this Scripture which Paul commends to Timothy is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος). It is inspired by the Spirit of God (2 Timothy 3:16). This means that it is inherently spiritual. If the Holy Spirit inspired Moses and supernaturally superintended his writing of the Mosaic Covenant, how can the covenant be merely external or temporal, and not spiritual? It is not possible. Of course, Paul tells us that “the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14) and that the commandment is “holy, just, and good” (Romans 7:12). These are spiritual attributes, not carnal. If a man is holy, just, and good, it is only by the Spirit of God, so also with the law (Mosaic Covenant).
A Possible Objection
Some object and say that Paul elsewhere denigrates the Mosaic Covenant as deathly and not spiritual, for instance in 2 Corinthians 3:6-11. This is an understandable objection. But it is based upon a shallow surface-level reading of the text. If we contextualize it, we realize that Paul is comparing and contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant and its now-come realities in Christ. It is only a relative, not an absolute, dismissal of the Mosaic Covenant, and that only in regards to its previous religious administration. But the objector has a greater problem: how, if the Mosaic Covenant is here reduced to mere externalism, does Paul then go on to teach us that only those who have the Spirit of the Lord can rightly understand Moses (2 Corinthians 3:14-18)? Why is the Spirit necessary to understand aright a covenant that was only external? Further, why does Paul take Mosaic Covenant texts and apply them to the New Covenant church (2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1) if the Mosaic Covenant is not spiritual?
The Proper Solution
The best and biblical, and really only solution is to understand that the Mosaic Covenant operated on at least three levels: (1) the carnal, (2) the symbolical, and (3) the typical. The carnal speaks to the external and physical elements. The symbolical deals with the religio-spiritual truths taught by the carnal. And the typical embodies these truths in particular ways on a lower, then-present level, and a higher, to-come level. Let’s demonstrate this three-tiered approach with a simple animal sacrifice.
First, on a carnal level, was the animal itself. Let’s say a lamb. This was to be brought, slain, its blood sprinkled, and its flesh burned. This was the carnal. Symbolically, this taught the basic truth that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. A death must be paid for sins. In this instance, an innocent animal is slain in place of a sinner. Of course, this teaches much more, i.e. that God’s justice is demanding, that sin is costly, that life is forfeited when one sins, etc. Typically (or typologically) these truths are (1) embodied first on this lower, visible, immediate level and (2) find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ at the cross—our perfect, spotless, innocent Lamb of God, who died as our substitute for our sins.
That said, it’s unlikely that the worshippers at the time could clearly see the fulfillment of the type (antitype). This is why admitting typology today is not the same as the saints of that time clearly seeing it themselves. Then, we might ask, what gave their worship meaning? Their worship had present meaning and significance chiefly through the symbolical element, which they were to engage in, concur with, and believe, and which was to stir them up and teach them, by means of visible symbols, as a church underage. (The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper function in a similar way today).
For a positive and fuller treatment of this issue see my paper on Patrick Fairbairn entitled The Scotsman and Sinai. I cite a few places where Fairbairn interacts with John Erskine, a man whom 1689 Federalists have appealed to in support of their claim that the Mosaic Covenant was merely external. The paper acts as a positive deterrent to such a view.