West Port Experiment

The difference between the old and the new economy; superiority of the new over the old, the inferiority of the old. Distinctions within biblical language to reflect the manifold character of God’s revelation to us, while fundamentally one purpose and plan of God. Within God’s economy, there is unity in diversity. Further, some of the superior qualities of the new administration consist in a relatively greater degree of spirituality and perception of spiritual things and the eternal inheritance, above the more temporal attention of the old economy.

* * * * *

Moreover, they may be called the “old” and “new” testaments in a literal sense or a figurative one. And the words may be used with wide or narrow meaning. When the sense is literal, the word “old testament” stands for the Law, insofar as it was given to the Jewish people through Moses. It promised life to them on condition of perfect obedience, with the provision of a curse upon the transgressors, and it brought with it an unbearable burden of legal rituals and the yoke of a highly restrictive political order. For this reason it is called “the letter that kills,” “the dispensation of death and condemnation,” “bearing children for slavery, like Hagar” (2 Corinthians 3:6,7; Galatians 4:23, 24). Placed opposite to this is the “new testament” (in the strict sense), the teaching of spiritual grace and salvation fully revealed by the Son of God himself from the bosom of the Father and spread abroad by the apostles’ preaching. It promises righteousness without price, and life everlasting through and for the sake of Christ the testator unto all who believe in him through the grace that he will lavish on them abundantly.

In this sense the old and new testaments are different not only in some circumstantial qualities and contingencies, but also in essence, and (to use the words of Paul) “there are two testaments” (Galatians 4:24). For each one established an entirely different ground for salvation, as the former holds forth the promise of life on the condition of works, while the latter promises the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting to everyone who relies on Christ through faith. Therefore those people are said “to have fallen away from grace, who wish to be justified through the Law” (Galatians 5:4). And the Law is placed over against the promise in such a way that if the inheritance comes by the former, then it cannot come by the latter (Galatians 3:18). The same reason exists for the contrast between the Law of works and the Law of faith (Romans 3:27). The first of these is understood as teaching salvation that is promised on the condition “that you do all these things,” while the second teaches that the same salvation is offered on the condition “that you believe.” God freely grants that condition so that whoever is justified fulfills it.

In this sense, therefore, the old testament receives the names “administration of death, the letter that kills” (2 Corinthians 3:6), “the unbearable yoke” that oppressed its supporters with slavery (Acts 15:10), “a mere shadow of so many good things yet to come” (Hebrews 10:1), lacking in perfection, intended for abolition, etc. The new testament is placed opposite it in this strict sense (as we called it). It is the “ministry of the life-giving Spirit,” “the easy yoke of Christ,” bestowing on us the spirit of adoption and the freedom of being God’s children (Matthew 11:29, Romans 8:15-17), having “the true image of things,” perfect and eternal.

Figuratively and as metonyms the names “old and new testaments” are given to the books that make up the codex of the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles and evangelists, in the same way as in our human affairs the sealed records of our last wills are called “testaments.” For this reason also the signs of the sacraments receive the same name of “testaments.” In this sense, in 2 Corinthians 3:14 the apostle speaks of a “veil that remains over the reading of the old testament.” And by the analogy of this statement the reading of the Gospel can be called the reading of the new testament; in this sense the word “new testament” is employed generally for the Gospel-books. But what is said in verse six of the same chapter about “ministers of the new testament” does not concern the sacred book. As far as the signs of the sacrament are concerned, Christ himself calls the cup of blessing by the metonym “new testament in his blood” (Luke 22:20), and the apostle speaks of a testament or covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8). . . .

When the word “testament” [diathēkē] is used with wider meaning and accompanied by the word “old” [palaia] it embraces the Law given through Moses (about which we spoke) and the promise made to Adam about the seed of the woman, and the same promise made again to Abraham about his own offspring, in whom all the nations were to be blessed. The apostle expressly calls this promise a “testament considered to have been ratified or confirmed previously” (Galatians 3:17), and at Ephesians 2:12 “the covenants of promise.” But “the Law given through Moses” is joined to that same promise insofar as they are understood in a broad sense under the old testament. But only to the extent that the Law is “our custodian unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), because the ceremonial law cried out that what the moral law most urgently demanded from the human race was achieved only by Christ and his sacrifice. And the law of the political order provided support to each of the other laws, and attended to them with an outward arrangement that each could use.

In this way also “new testament” is taken in a broader sense for the teaching of grace and faith, as well as repentance and thankfulness, or the new obedience. For the call of the Gospel is: “Repent and believe in the Gospel,” and so it demands faith in the Gospel and repentance—two things that are necessarily accompanied by the new obedience whereby one lives a life worthy to God. This is the sense of the word “Gospel” when the apostle says that he “was set apart to preach the Gospel of God” (Romans 1:1), and “God is going to judge according to his Gospel” (Romans 2:16), and similar texts.

Both “old” and “new testament” are, however, used with strict and literal meaning (as we called it) and then they are opposed to each other so diametrically that they cannot be reconciled. Thus there is no need for us to undertake a lengthy comparison of them. They are similar from the general perspective of their single authorship, namely God. As lawmaker it was he who gave the law, while as merciful Father it was he who gave the Gospel. They are similar also from the general perspective of content, for the teaching in both testaments consists in the command to obedience and the promise of rewards. They agree in the general intent of their goals, namely the glory of God’s wisdom and goodness. So too when we consider the subject that they share: the human race. On the other hand, however, a very large difference occurs when one considers each of all these things in particular—we spoke about this particular aspect above, in thesis six. We do admit, however, that the word “old testament,” in the sense that it is understood here, is never used in Holy Scripture for the covenant of grace. But there is nothing that prevents the covenant of grace or the promise made to the patriarchs (when dressed in the circumstantial qualities of its role as custodian) from going by the name “old testament,” because it contained something that had to be renewed and was to become obsolete. For when Paul says “the first testament which God has made obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13 and 9:1), he takes it to mean the entire religious worship of the old tabernacle—which surely contained the promise, and confirmed it. And although strictly speaking, as we have said, “testament” means simply the covenant of works, nevertheless by adding the name “new” it means only the covenant of grace. But in order to remove any doubt as to its meaning, we ought to undertake a comparison of the old testament with the new. As far as the old testament is concerned, it is taken for the covenant of grace insofar as immediately after the fall it began with our first parents and was made with Abraham; and to support it there was the law given through Moses. And as for the new testament, it is taken for the covenant of grace insofar as Christ renewed and confirmed it. . . .

And nevertheless they are called two testaments, not by dividing their kind into species but according to the accidental qualities of their subject-matter. For the same thing that remains in their species and substance varies according to the different grounds for their arrangement and the way each is administered (from both the side of God and of man). God, in administering the testaments inwardly, imparts to the elect (for one and the same sonship) the one and the same Spirit who pours forth as much light of knowledge as is needed for salvation. Nevertheless it is quite obvious that in the new testament the Holy Spirit shines forth with greater efficacy, and the diversity and abundance of gifts shines more brilliantly, if we consider the body of the Church as a community. For then “he poured out upon all flesh his Holy Spirit” who before was imparted more sparingly (Joel 2:28).

A consideration of their outward administration, too, produces no small difference. For if we look at the quality in which the testaments are revealed, it is less transparent in the old, since Christ is proffered as yet to come, while in the new he is preached as already revealed. In the former, the heavenly inheritance is put forth as something to be viewed in terms of earthly benefits, and displayed as something whereof the patriarchs were to have a foretaste. And contrary to that, the old testament gives much more obvious demonstrations of the judgment of the ungodly, in the form of bodily punishments. This was the reason why they considered those temporary blessings more valuable than would be fitting today. But as it is now, our hearts are aimed straight and directly at the heavenly heritage, as the grace of the life to come is more clearly and transparently revealed through the Gospel, and as the inferior way of exercising it was abandoned.

A third difference is added in this, that when the old testament was handed down it was wrapped up in a shadowy keeping of ceremonies that possessed no efficacy of itself; and the various rites and figures in it were a means of foreshadowing Christ as yet to come. But in the new testament we are offered to behold him with his face uncovered, and the truth of the things themselves and his body are displayed in the here and now. And the signs that were instituted in the new testament no longer promise some future thing, but they bear witness to one that had been promised earlier and was fulfilled in due time. They form signs and seals of its greater efficacy. And these signs are not bloody, nor so great in number, nor so burdensome or difficult to perceive. In fact, these signs are bloodless, fewer in number, easier to discern, and of greater clarity. In the former testament “there was a shadow of good things that were going to come, while in the latter there is a true, living form of real things” (Hebrews 10:1).

A fourth difference is seen in the quantity of people and the universal scope of those who are received into the covenant. For whereas under the old testament the promise was limited in scope to Abraham and his descendants to the exclusion of other peoples—or with the inclusion of a very few who were somehow engrafted into Abraham’s family through some extraordinary grace. But now, in the new testament, when the wall that divided them has been broken down—the wall that for so long a time kept God’s mercy confined within the boundaries of Israel—peace has been proclaimed for those who were far off, that they might join with those who were close by into the one people of God. Hence the calling of the gentiles, that most precious gift of the new testament, is called “the mystery hidden for ages and generations,” and the angels themselves marvel at it (Colossians 1:26).

The fifth difference exists in the changed ways in which they are administered on the part of man. For in the old testament it was required not only to keep the moral law, but even “the heir, as long as he is a little boy, being no different from a slave” is kept in practical slavery to the ceremonial law (Galatians 4:2, 3, 4). Hence, even though the heir, as heir, was granted the “spirit of adoption,” and so “of freedom,” nevertheless, as a “little child” he could not yet actually enjoy complete freedom; the freedom he possessed was moderated even by a spirit of slavery. But in the new testament, those who believe are no longer subject to these chains and burdens of observances; “they did not receive the spirit of slavery again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption through which they cry out, ‘Abba, Father’” (Romans 8:13[15]).

The final difference lies in the length of time taken for the administration of each. For the first testament had to cease after the fullness of time had come; therefore it was subject to change. For it says “the Law and the prophets until the time of John” (Luke 16:16); “for when there is a change in the priesthood, there must be a change also in the law” (Hebrews 7:12). And, “the law was added because of sin, until the seed should come” (Hebrews 7:18). But now that this seed has been revealed, we should no longer expect a change in the priesthood, since Christ remains as “priest forever,” Psalm 110:4.

[image source]