Basic HTML Version
278
Church, consisting of the remainder of the New Testament, and addressed to us. Since the
dispensations do not intermingle, it follows that in the dispensation of the law there is no
revelation of the grace of God, and in the dispensation of grace there is no revelation of the law
as binding on the New Testament people of God. If space permitted, it would not be difficult to
prove that this is an entirely untenable position.
2. THE THEORY OF THREE DISPENSATIONS.
Irenæus spoke of three covenants, the first
characterized by the law written in the heart, the second, by the law as an external
commandment given at Sinai, and the third, by the law restored to the heart through the
operation of the Holy Spirit; and thus suggests the idea of three dispensations. Coccejus
distinguished three dispensations of the covenant of grace, the first ante legem, the second sub
lege, and the third post legem. He made a sharp distinction, therefore, between the
administration of the covenant before and after Moses. Now it is undoubtedly true that there is
considerable difference between the administration of the covenant before and after the giving
of the law, but the similarity is greater than the difference, so that we are not justified in co-
ordinating the work of Moses with that of Christ as a dividing-line in the administration of the
covenant. The following points of difference may be noted:
a. In the manifestation of the gracious character of the covenant.
In the patriarchal period the
gracious character of the covenant stood out more prominently than in the later period. The
promise was more in the foreground, Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:18. Yet even this should not be stressed
unduly, as if there were no legal burdens, both moral and ceremonial, before the time of
Moses, and no gracious promises during the period of the law. The substance of the law was in
force before Moses, and sacrifices were already required. And gracious promises are found in
great abundance in the post-Mosaic writings. The only real point of difference is this: because
the law constituted for Israel an explicit reminder of the demands of the covenant of works,
there was a greater danger of mistaking the way of the law for the way of salvation. And the
history of Israel teaches us that it did not escape the danger.
b. In the emphasis on the spiritual character of the blessings.
The spiritual character of the
blessings of the covenant stands out more clearly in the patriarchial period. Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob were mere sojourners in the land of promise, dwelling there as strangers and
pilgrims. The temporal promise of the covenant was not yet fulfilled. Hence there was less
danger of fixing the mind too exclusively on the material blessings, as the Jews did later on. The
early patriarchs had a clearer understanding of the symbolical significance of those temporal
possessions, and looked for a heavenly city, Gal. 4:25,26; Heb. 11:9,10.
c. In the understanding of the universal destination of the covenant.
The universal destination
of the covenant was more clearly evident in the patriarchal period. Abraham was told that in his