This is an old video (2012), but I watched it again recently.
At 50:00 Dr. Gaffin argues that Jer 31/Heb 8 is making a redemptive historical/historia salutis point “using ordo salutis language.”
No, rather, the text makes an ordo salutis point with historia salutis implications. The New Covenant saves. Therefore the Old Covenant, which did not save and which merely pointed forward to the New Covenant, is obsolete.
Gaffin points to the experience of Abraham, Moses, and David in order to argue that ordo salutis benefits, namely regeneration, were provided by the Old Covenant. However, this is an invalid argument. The conclusion that the Old Covenant includes ordo salutis promises/benefits – including all those listed in Heb 8 – does not follow from the premise that OT saints were regenerate. I believe a correct exegesis of Heb 8 leads to the minor premise that the ordo salutis benefits are unique to the New Covenant (“better promises,” “not like the Old Covenant”).
P1 OT saints were regenerate
P2 The New Covenant alone regenerates
C OT saints were regenerated by the New Covenant
Before one objects that this is fanciful baptist eisegesis, consider that Gaffin said
The ordo salutis reality… Abraham being a man of faith, a regenerate person of faith which is dependent upon the work of Christ still to come in the future for its efficacy.
Bucey likewise said
[T]he grace that is administered to these Old Testament saints – really what they’re receiving are the same spiritual benefits the same grace the same substantial grace coming from the same work of Christ – they’re just receiving it in anticipation of the work he would come to do.
And in a separate episode, Tipton said
Even prior to His advent, His incarnation, His life and death and resurrection, prior to that the virtue, benefits, and efficacy of his atoning sacrifice and resurrection and ascension are retrospectively applied to saints in the Old Testament order by the supernatural agency of the Spirit.
What the author of Hebrews argues at great length is that this work of Christ and the benefits it entails are exclusive to the New Covenant. According to the author of Hebrews, the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant in that it regenerates and justifies (8:6-12). The author of Hebrews contrasts the blood of the Old Covenant (bulls and goats) with the blood of the New Covenant (Christ). He argues there is an ordo salutis difference between the two, not merely an historia salutis difference. “[I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (10:4) “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” (9:15) As Owen has correctly remarked
The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant.
Calvin was confronted with the truth of this logic in his effort to exegete Hebrews 8, particularly verse 10. He concluded
[W]hatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them… There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.
This was actually the dominant view (as far as I can tell) prior to the reformation. It was Augustine’s view, echoed in Aquinas (who is quoted in Catholic Catechism 1964 on this point). See Joshua Moon’s “An ‘Augustinian’ Reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition.” Many others, such as John Frame and Michael Horton, have also recognized this truth.
Once we have this correct foundation, then we can discuss how types relate to OT saints’ understanding of and belief in the gospel, as well as how we are to understand the issue of apostasy and the warning passages.
4 thoughts on “Re: Gaffin on Hebrews 8”
It is hard to understand the simultaneous embrace of the covenant of redemption and the rejection of prospective application of the New Covenant to OT saints. Especially given our interlocutors here also embrace the already/not yet distinction. Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant includes things which are not yet realized in history. Does that mean we are not living in the New Covenant? I know some Dispensationalists who do argue that way, but it seems ridiculous to me and I’m sure Bucey et al would agree. The New Covenant definitely was “made” with us in the earthly life of Jesus and his exaltation to glory, because by those means redemption was secured. And yet, the Spirit we have now as a downpayment of a yet-future consummation and climax of the covenant. But surely it was prospectively bearing fruit all along the way, even prior to Christ’s coming. For it was God’s will that the serpent should bruise his heel from the beginning. Indeed, it was through the Son of God that all things were made that were made.
You just can’t get to the conclusion—OC is the CG from the mere proposition that OC saints were saved. You need some additional premises, such as NC was not in fact effective or the NC’s benefits were actually and properly administered by the OC. But the former is never stated and the latter is contradicted by Jeremiah.
Pingback: Podcast: Responding to Reformed Forum on 2LBC 8.6 @ The Particular Baptist – Contrast
You say: “Once we have this correct foundation, then we can discuss how types relate to OT saints’ understanding of and belief in the gospel, as well as how we are to understand the issue of apostasy and the warning passages.”
Question: Do you have any articles written on the subject of apostasy and warning passages? (Heb 6, 10 etc) Articles/books written by others that have similar view like yours would work too.
Hi R.A., if you go to my welcome page you can see a list of all my posts by category. At the top are posts on specific passages. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/
Here are a few:
I also discuss Owen’s interpretation of Heb 10:29 in this podcast, providing a little more context for his comments that were helpful for me (starting somewhere around the 1 hr 47 min mark) https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/podcast-responding-to-reformed-forum-on-2lbc-8-6-the-particular-baptist/
LikeLiked by 1 person