# Mosaic Covenant: Law or Gospel?



## Cotton Mather

I was introduced to Covenant theology by O. Palmer Robertson in his classic work _Christ of the Covenants._ After reading God of Promise by Michael Horton, alongside Meredith Kline's work on covenant theology, I modified my covenant theology a bit. Right now, I consider myself a Klinean to the core and agree with the WSC consensus on the law/gospel distinction, two kingdoms theology, etc. etc. Horton continues to state in his book that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, and should be regarded strictly as a suzerain/vassal treaty consistent with the law principle. After recently reading John Murray's tract on the covenant of grace, I noted how he emphatically regards the Mosaic covenant as an integral administration of the covenant of grace in the history of redemption. My questions are both historical and theological. What do some of you guys think about this issue? 1) Is the Mosaic covenant strictly a covenant of works? 2) If so, does this confuse the law/gospel distinction and pose a threat to our soteriology, specifically justification and the alone instrument (faith) through which we are justified? 3.) Does Kline/WSC represent mainstream Reformed covenantal thinking, or do some of you think that Kline departs from historic Reformed covenantalism in significant ways? 4). Historically, is Reformed theology monolithic in its understanding of the Mosaic covenant, or are there differences of thought concerning whether the Mosaic covenant should be looked at through the lenses of law or gospel? I'm sure there are Klineans out there who will agree with WSC and Kline in their understanding of covenant theology. This is where I tend to lean. I'm sure there are also those who favor Murray's position and regard the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace in the history of redemption. I hold firmly to the law/gospel distinction, and fear that viewing the Mosaic covenant in both law and gospel categories might confuse these soteriological paradigms a bit. Nevertheless, I'm Reformed and always reforming, and only desire to allign my thought with solid Reformed confessional thinking. Thanks so much. I know this is a lot to answer, and I'm not interested in debating. I'm just curious as to what some of you might think about these issues. Grace and peace.


----------



## Christusregnat

Jordan,

The best I can do is to recommend a few puritan works:

Marrow of Modern Divinity:

The Marrow of Modern Divnity

John Flavel's work on the covenant of grace:

Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis  - Rev. John Flavel

You will note in Flavel's work that the opponent is a certain Mr. Philip Cary, who was NOT a covenant theologian, but who held a view similar to what you're describing. You will note all of the puritans that Flavel sites as being against the view promulgated (if you are right about Horton) by Horton, Kline, WSC etc. if those views are similar to Mr. Cary's.

If you are right about what they are saying (the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the CoW), then this list of puritans was wrong:

MR. ALLEN, 
MR. SEDGWICK, 
MR. BAXTER, 
MR. ROBERTS, 
MR. SYDENHAM, 
AND DR. BURTHOGGE

And the author himself, John Flavel. As you may undoubtedly know, these were some of the Post-westminster luminaries among the puritans. If I may be so bold, I think they adequately represent the teachings of the Westminster Assembly, and that Mr. Flavel's arguments bear out the teaching of the Confession quite nicely.

Categorizing the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the CoW is not Reformed theology, as far as Westminster is concerned. The implications of doing this are far reaching, and have led certain of this crowd to condemn the socio-political and ethical teaching of scripture as part of the CoW, and thereby make it irrelevant. Something the WCF does not do.

Happy reading!

Adam


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I'm not equiped to contribute, but look forward to learning from this thread.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Cotton Mather said:


> I was introduced to Covenant theology by O. Palmer Robertson in his classic work _Christ of the Covenants._ After reading God of Promise by Michael Horton, alongside Meredith Kline's work on covenant theology, I modified my covenant theology a bit. Right now, I consider myself a Klinean to the core and agree with the WSC consensus on the law/gospel distinction, two kingdoms theology, etc. etc. Horton continues to state in his book that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, and should be regarded strictly as a suzerain/vassal treaty consistent with the law principle. After recently reading John Murray's tract on the covenant of grace, I noted how he emphatically regards the Mosaic covenant as an integral administration of the covenant of grace in the history of redemption. My questions are both historical and theological. What do some of you guys think about this issue? 1) Is the Mosaic covenant strictly a covenant of works? 2) If so, does this confuse the law/gospel distinction and pose a threat to our soteriology, specifically justification and the alone instrument (faith) through which we are justified? 3.) Does Kline/WSC represent mainstream Reformed covenantal thinking, or do some of you think that Kline departs from historic Reformed covenantalism in significant ways? 4). Historically, is Reformed theology monolithic in its understanding of the Mosaic covenant, or are there differences of thought concerning whether the Mosaic covenant should be looked at through the lenses of law or gospel? I'm sure there are Klineans out there who will agree with WSC and Kline in their understanding of covenant theology. This is where I tend to lean. I'm sure there are also those who favor Murray's position and regard the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace in the history of redemption. I hold firmly to the law/gospel distinction, and fear that viewing the Mosaic covenant in both law and gospel categories might confuse these soteriological paradigms a bit. Nevertheless, I'm Reformed and always reforming, and only desire to allign my thought with solid Reformed confessional thinking. Thanks so much. I know this is a lot to answer, and I'm not interested in debating. I'm just curious as to what some of you might think about these issues. Grace and peace.



Horton's book is helpful in learning about the diversity of the covenants; Robertson's in seeing the thematic unity across Scripture. Horton responds and critiques Robertson, Robertson takes on the Dispensational's (so to speak). 

You are right on when you state that Horton holds the Mosaic to be a reproduction of the covenant of works. The Mosaic covenant is unique, similar to other covenants, but is distinct. I hold something of a balance between Robertson and Kline - the Mosaic is not all law, no grace; nor is it all grace and no law (obviously). 

The tenor of the OT is that Israel was exiled because she forsook God. There certainly was a conditional element to the Mosaic Cov't. Kline is dead on there. A question to consider is how is God portrayed in the Mosaic Cov't? He is jealous for worship from His people, and His glory. But There is a gracious element there as well, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of slavery." So the Mosiac Cov't is founded on God's grace to his people, and his fore-loving (election) of Israel. The paradigm thus is grace-law-grace. Is that not how we preach? Israel did not remain in exile. 

Regarding #3 and 4, Kline is certainly on one side of the reformed pendulum and Murray on the other. I think most reformed people hold a blend of the two, more of Kline than not. Many FV people claim Murray's Adamic Administration to be a premature synthesis of their ideas (though it is not). But a reformed Spectrum would look like: 

Kline ---- Horton ---- ------ Robertson ----- Murray ----- --- all one cov't of grace (Protestant Reformed and others)


----------



## turmeric

Do I get to vote? Both.


----------



## toddpedlar

Christusregnat said:


> Jordan,
> 
> The best I can do is to recommend a few puritan works:
> 
> Marrow of Modern Divinity:
> 
> The Marrow of Modern Divnity
> 
> John Flavel's work on the covenant of grace:
> 
> Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis - Rev. John Flavel
> 
> You will note in Flavel's work that the opponent is a certain Mr. Philip Cary, who was NOT a covenant theologian, but who held a view similar to what you're describing. You will note all of the puritans that Flavel sites as being against the view promulgated (if you are right about Horton) by Horton, Kline, WSC etc. if those views are similar to Mr. Cary's.
> 
> If you are right about what they are saying (the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the CoW), then this list of puritans was wrong:
> 
> MR. ALLEN,
> MR. SEDGWICK,
> MR. BAXTER,
> MR. ROBERTS,
> MR. SYDENHAM,
> AND DR. BURTHOGGE



Just so that you make a complete list that includes strong, solid and fully respectable in terms of their covenant theology (rather than the questionable ones like Baxter that you list above) you can add to the list John Owen, Herman Witsius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston, among others.

_It should be noted that those who saw a republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant did NOT see that as anything but a temporal devic_e - there was never *any indication* in their writings that the Mosaic Covenant was in any way (salvifically speaking) a covenant of Works. They wrote clearly that the Mosaic Covenant was promulgated as one dispensation (to use the Westminsterian sense) of the ONE Covenant of Grace!


----------



## Casey

I think the question in the title of the thread makes answering difficult. "Mosaic Covenant: Law or Gospel?" Well, are you defining "law" and "gospel" in the dualistic Lutheran manner that WSC seems to follow? If so, I believe it's a false dichotomy. There is law and gospel in the Mosaic covenant ("I brought you out of the house of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; Thou shalt have no other gods, etc.") just as there is law and gospel in the new covenant ("Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more").

And if you want to be confessional, take note that the Westminster Standards never define "law" and "gospel" in the dualistic Lutheran sense. And what's more, the Standards are pretty clear that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, while saying nothing of it being an "administration" of the covenant of works (in any sense whatsoever). Seems to me that the doctrine of the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai is at best extra-confession and at worst contra-confessional (if the Westminster Standards are your standards).


----------



## Christusregnat

toddpedlar said:


> MR. ALLEN,
> MR. SEDGWICK,
> MR. BAXTER,
> MR. ROBERTS,
> MR. SYDENHAM,
> AND DR. BURTHOGGE
> 
> 
> Just so that you make a complete list that includes strong, solid and fully respectable in terms of their covenant theology (rather than the questionable ones like Baxter that you list above) you can add to the list John Owen, Herman Witsius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston, among others.
> 
> _It should be noted that those who saw a republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant did NOT see that as anything but a temporal devic_e - there was never *any indication* in their writings that the Mosaic Covenant was in any way (salvifically speaking) a covenant of Works. They wrote clearly that the Mosaic Covenant was promulgated as one dispensation (to use the Westminsterian sense) of the ONE Covenant of Grace!





Todd,

Yes, I was merely cutting and pasting from Flavel's book, which is why the list is not complete, nor (as you pointed out) as satisfying as it could otherwise be.

I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.

Thanks for the extra names!

Adam


----------



## Cotton Mather

Casey. Apologies if my wording was ambiguous. Nevertheless, I could have heard the same statement espoused by any Federal Visionist seeking to create a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of law and gospel in an attempt to revamp our confessional doctrine of justification. I'm not saying you're a federal visionist in any sense, I'm merely noting that the rhetoric is similar. Reformed scholasticism at its finest distinguished between law and gospel as fundamentally different soteriological paradigms. From Ursinius to Turretin to Shedd to Vos to Bavinck, the Reformed have always spoken of the law/gospel distinction as integral to Reformed systematics. Noteworthy is that when Beza hashed out the fundamental differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, the law/gospel distinction nor justification by faith alone were ever listed as something fundamentally disagreed upon. The modern attempt to pit Lutheran formulations of law/gospel over and against a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of these principles has been a major contribution to the revisionistic heresies we're seeing in the NPP, FV, and Shepherd. I agree that we shouldn't attempt to flatten out the Mosaic covenant strictly into one particular principle like law/gospel or works/grace. Obviously, the Lord was patient and gracious with Israel in her continual apostasy, and grace abounded when blatant sin and idolatry were present within the nation. God's election of Israel as a nation was also a gracious act of condescension, along with the types and shadows which pointed to the person and work of Christ. Nevertheless, on a typological and national level, I think the works principle is there. It was the failure of the Mosaic Covenant to offer a salvific remedy for Israel's lawbreaking that constituted the need for the New Covenant, wherein the mind's and heart's of God's people are transformed from within as the law is written on their hearts. 

As for Owen being included among the ranks of those who saw the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace, I would beg to differ. Owen used the "republication" language when speaking of the Mosaic covenant. Owen viewed Israel's national and typological status, along with her physical blessings in the land as dependent upon obedience to the law, this reality reflective of the ethos of the covenant of works. In speaking of the Mosaic Covenant Owen writes...

"It revived the promise of that covenant, - that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, 'That the man which doeth those things shall live by them,' Rom x.5; as he doth, Lev.xviii.5. Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, 'Do this, and live.'" (XXII, p.78)


----------



## kceaster

I think one has to be careful when categorizing earlier writers and cast them in the same shadows as WSC. I think their (WSC) approach is novel. I really believe that the earlier writers, even if they spoke to this and used some of the same language, would show that the giving of the law as a tutor to Christ is the only sense in which it was a republication of the CoW. In the sense of "do this and live," it was not, to the children of Israel, a promise of eternal salvation by their obedience. One of the key indicators that such a thing is not promised in the Mosaic covenant is that man, by his fall into sin, lost communion with God and was under His wrath and curse. If under wrath and curse, the only blessing, even though temporal, to be rendered to any of Adam's sons, is that of common grace. Yet, we would not consider God's relationship to Israel to be one of common grace, but of saving grace. If saving grace, then there is no room for law keeping as a means of grace or an instrument of justification.

Therefore, if there is any republication, it is only as a tutor. There is no getting around the fact that God will not tolerate anything other than perfect obedience, and that by faith. Further, He will not reward anything other than faith, without which none can please Him. If it is a republication in the WSC sense, then God would be rewarding those with saving graces who did not please Him by faith. Yet what does Hebrews tell us? God was pleased with some because of their faith, which was a gift to them by Him.

So, I can't see the republication in the WSC sense, and I do not believe that classic covenant theology agrees with them either.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## toddpedlar

Christusregnat said:


> I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.



Come again? Where did you get the idea that Flavel was a baptist?


----------



## Poimen

Ursinus notes in his _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_:



> The law promises life to those who are righteous in themselves, or on the condition of righteousness, and perfect obedience. [Lev 18:5; Matt 19:17] The gospel, on the other hand, promises life to those who are justified by faith in Christ, or on the condition of the righteousness of Christ, applied unto us by faith. The law and the gospel are, however, not opposed to each other in these respects: for although the law requires us to keep the commandments if we would enter into life, yet it does not exclude us from life if another perform these things for us. It does indeed propose a way of satisfaction, which is through ourselves, but it does not forbid the other, as has been shown.



This is just one quote of many that can be reproduced from the early Reformers who taught that eternal life was obtainable through the law for those who kept it in perfection. 

I think it is proper, therefore, to say that a 'stream' of the covenant of works is found in the Mosaic economy. This is NOT to disparage the law of God _per se_ (see Romans 3:31) but only to drive us to Christ. 

In fact I would disagree that the Mosaic covenant is, by its very nature, a covenant of works though it does, at times, portray elements of it. 

P.S. Let us refrain from speaking about the WSC view of the covenants because I don't think it is helpful. Do they really take Horton's position as a faith statement? I was taught Hebrew by a professor at WSC who disagreed with Kline's view of the Mosaic economy (though he no longer teaches there).


----------



## Cotton Mather

KC

Thanks for the reply. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, I'm a Klinean to the core and view WSC as representing one particular school of historic-Reformed covenantal thinking.

One clarification. Kline and his followers never claim that the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant entails obedience upon reward of salvific blessing. No one is saying that Israel's obedience to the law yields any salvific benefit. Individual Israelites are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Kline is simply arguing that Israel's national and typological enjoyment of _physical_ blessing is strictly dependent upon obedience to the law, as seen in the suzerain-vassal context in which the covenant is dispensed. "Do this and live", for Kline, constitutes the essence of the Sinai covenant.


----------



## Cotton Mather

Daniel,
Apologies if my statements about WSC flatten out the differences that might exist between the profs. In fact, Iain Duguid seems to differ from Horton in his essay in CJPM. I'm sure there are other differences as well. I'm thinking specifically of guys like Horton and Clark who seem to follow Kline's covenantalism.


----------



## Poimen

No problem; I wasn't angry about it. 

Duguid was the one whom I had in mind (as contrary to the Klinean position). 

And I am not certain how much Godfrey espouses the Klinean view (if at all). I know that WSC has also been lumped in with an anti-Kuyperian bent but as someone pointed out on another thread, Godfrey, for example, has a high view of Kuyper. And then you have the resident Puritan advocate on staff, Hywel Jones. Just a few more examples to show the variety that exists among the faculty. 

One thing is certain, though: NPP and FV will not find a home at WSC while these men are teaching there (thankfully and - hopefully - never!).


----------



## Cotton Mather

Amen!


----------



## Christusregnat

My bad!

Flavel's _enemy _was a baptist 

That's what I meant to say.

Cheers,

Adam





toddpedlar said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come again? Where did you get the idea that Flavel was a baptist?
Click to expand...


----------



## Casey

Cotton Mather said:


> Casey. Apologies if my wording was ambiguous. Nevertheless, I could have heard the same statement espoused by any Federal Visionist seeking to create a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of law and gospel in an attempt to revamp our confessional doctrine of justification. I'm not saying you're a federal visionist in any sense, I'm merely noting that the rhetoric is similar. Reformed scholasticism at its finest distinguished between law and gospel as fundamentally different soteriological paradigms. From Ursinius to Turretin to Shedd to Vos to Bavinck, the Reformed have always spoken of the law/gospel distinction as integral to Reformed systematics. Noteworthy is that when Beza hashed out the fundamental differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, the law/gospel distinction nor justification by faith alone were ever listed as something fundamentally disagreed upon. The modern attempt to pit Lutheran formulations of law/gospel over and against a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of these principles has been a major contribution to the revisionistic heresies we're seeing in the NPP, FV, and Shepherd. I agree that we shouldn't attempt to flatten out the Mosaic covenant strictly into one particular principle like law/gospel or works/grace. Obviously, the Lord was patient and gracious with Israel in her continual apostasy, and grace abounded when blatant sin and idolatry were present within the nation. God's election of Israel as a nation was also a gracious act of condescension, along with the types and shadows which pointed to the person and work of Christ. Nevertheless, on a typological and national level, I think the works principle is there. It was the failure of the Mosaic Covenant to offer a salvific remedy for Israel's lawbreaking that constituted the need for the New Covenant, wherein the mind's and heart's of God's people are transformed from within as the law is written on their hearts.


Boy, I never thought I'd be compared to the Federal Visionists for wanting to defend the Confession. So, you mean I have to accept your law-gospel dualism (which is nowhere taught in the Confession) to be "confessional" and thus not employ Federal Visionist rhetoric? Honestly, I've been thinking the gymnastics done in WCF 19 to force a "republication" doctrine into the Confession seems to be far more in line with the antics of the Federal Vision camp.

Klineans like to quote from numerous Reformed theologians of the past to support their republication doctrine, their two-kingdoms doctrine, and their law-gospel dualism (whether these are valid appeals to these Reformed authorities is another question). That's fine. I could go ahead and pull up Calvin quotes regarding the Sabbath. But if I held Calvin's view of the Sabbath, I wouldn't be _confessional_ anymore, would I? In other words, just because you can dig up a heap of Reformed theologians who have held your position, it does not mean that it's the _confessional_ position today. I'm not minimizing the usefulness of respected Reformed theologians from the past. But I am saying that the Confession has more authority than them and ought to be read and interpreted in its own right. History only assists our interpretation of the Standards, it doesn't define our interpretation of the Standards. If Calvin (or any other number of Reformed theologians) held to a particular view, that doesn't mean the Confession does.

I think there's a reason Klineans rarely quote from the Westminster Standards when it comes to supporting their view of the Mosaic Covenant, the "two kingdoms," and their law-gospel dualism. Quite simply, these teachings aren't there. (It would be interesting to see just exactly how many times Horton references the Westminster Standards in his book.) I really can't understand how you can honestly read the Lutheran view in the Westminster Standards, it's just not there. If you want to ask, "Which views have been acceptable in the Reformed tradition in the past?" That's one question. And I believe that question is different from, "Which view is the confessional view?" Also different from, "Which view is the biblical view?" I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith is an accurate representation and summary of the Bible's teaching. But I do not believe the republication of the CoWs at Sinai, the radical two-kingdom dualism, or the radical law-gospel dualism are either biblical or confessional.

Disagree? Please prove from the Westminster Standards: (1) the republication of the CoWs at Sinai (answering *this post*); (2) the law-gospel dualism (answering *this post*); and, (3) the radical two-kingdom view. Please do this only using the Westminster Standards, that is, if you want to determine which is the actual "confessional" view. And according to RSC, the confessional view is the Reformed view.

(Presupposed in this post of mine is that we subscribe to the Westminster Standards -- I understand that the Three Forms of Unity may be more ambiguous or more exact on different points in comparison with the Westminster Standards.)


----------



## kceaster

Cotton Mather said:


> KC
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, I'm a Klinean to the core and view WSC as representing one particular school of historic-Reformed covenantal thinking.
> 
> One clarification. Kline and his followers never claim that the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant entails obedience upon reward of salvific blessing. No one is saying that Israel's obedience to the law yields any salvific benefit. Individual Israelites are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Kline is simply arguing that Israel's national and typological enjoyment of _physical_ blessing is strictly dependent upon obedience to the law, as seen in the suzerain-vassal context in which the covenant is dispensed. "Do this and live", for Kline, constitutes the essence of the Sinai covenant.



So my question is, why base any blessing upon obedience to the law, when perfect obedience by faith is the requirement? How could God EVER be pleased by any obedience other than Christ's who by faith is the only hope for obedience in the Christian? If the Israelite had faith in the messiah to come, then surely, not only temporal blessings, but spiritual and salvific blessings would be his because of the object of his faith and because God rewards those who earnestly (by faith) seek Him.

Another thing. What is the promise of this covenant? Does it involve God being a God to them? What does that mean? How was the covenant ratified? What sign was given? Did it involve blood? Making the Mosaic covenant all about the land is not possible because it doesn't fit the words being said or the actions being taken. Those words are words of grace and salvation. That blood represents the blood of Christ. How can that covenant point to anything other than the everlasting covenant of which this rendering is an administrative part of.

Yet another thing. I don't like the way Kline brought in the suzerainty treaties because I believe he is assuming that God formulated this "agreement" to look like the agreements everyone else was making. The everlasting covenant is just that, it's everlasting (OLAM). It was a time before time and will be a time after time. The representative blood shed was shed from the foundation of the world. The fact that other nations are making like treaties does not mean that God borrowed from them to make a treaty with His people. The fact that other nations are making treaties is because God established this pattern first.

Kline's formulations are not logical. It doesn't make sense to base temporal promises/rewards on obedience because no one except Christ would ever receive them. It is one thing to base salvation on faith and not works. It is another to say that God will reward anyone for works of the flesh in any realm. That would mean God, by necessity, would reward works. The Bible clearly states that the works of the flesh are their own reward and Paul's list certainly doesn't look flattering and praiseworthy for any temporal blessing.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnOwen007

Cotton Mather said:


> 4). Historically, is Reformed theology monolithic in its understanding of the Mosaic covenant, or are there differences of thought concerning whether the Mosaic covenant should be looked at through the lenses of law or gospel?



Dear Cotton,

There are (in a nutshell) three basic positions in the developed reformed tradition concerning the Sinai covenant (the early tradition didn't speak explicitly of a covenant of works / grace):

[1] Those who see Sinai as a covenant of works (like Robert Rollock, William Pemble, and John Preston).

[2] The majority view which understood Sinai as a covenant of grace (e.g. Sibbes, Ames, Ball, Rutherford, Brooks, Flavel).

[3] The minority view which understood Sinai as not a different administration of the covenant of works or grace, but a third type of covenant (_foedus suberviens_ - subservient covenant) whose purpose was to bring Israel to Christ, and then expire. It was first expounded by John Cameron, and followed by the school of Saumur, and most notably expounded by John Owen (in his commentary on Hebrews 8) and Samuel Petto. This view sought to take seriously the clear distinction in Hebrews between the old and new covenant terminology. It is moving in a "New Covenant Theology" direction but not quite there.

Kline's view is not the majority view, but that of course doesn't make it wrong. It's the biblical text that must show us what's right.

Blessings brother.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> [1] Those who see Sinai as a covenant of works (like Robert Rollock, William Pemble, and John Preston).



Marty, I don't think legal and evangelical covenant equate to the covenant of works and covenant of grace as later formulated. Hence it is somewhat inappropriate to categorise these divines as holding to a Mosaic covenant of works. Rollock says the five books of Moses only set forth the lineaments of the evangelical covenant but clearly recommend and urge the legal covenant (God's Effectual Calling, p. 39). If by legal covenant he meant the covenant of works, he would be stating that the Pentateuch as a whole were a legal covenant, which is unlikely. Rather, he is using the original paradigm (as in Tyndale) which equated "legal" with the Old Testament and "evangelical" with the New Testament. These divines should not have later dogmatic frameworks superimposed on their exposition.


----------



## Cotton Mather

Casey,
I'm not interested in providing some kind of "puritanboard" dissertation on Klinean covenantalism and its compatibility with the WCF. And if you read my response carefully I explicitly stated that I in no way implied that you harbor federal vision sympathies. I merely stated the actual reality IS that FV theologians argue in the same exact vein. Read Horne, Lusk, Wilkins, Wilson, Leithart, Shepherd and others. What do you hear? That Lutheran formulations of law and gospel fundamentally differ from Reformed theology in significant respects. If you agree with them, that's fine. I merely pointed out that FV vocabulary is very very similar to the statement you made about the incompatibility of law/gospel in Reformed theology.

I simply don't buy your bit about individual theologians versus Reformed confessionalism. You're operating on the assumption that Reformed scholasticism at its finest differs significantly from the WCF. Sorry man, but I just don't buy it. While the divines may have departed from earlier continental Reformed thinking in some respects, the mainstream views on major issues such as covenant theology and law/gospel were harmoniously consistent. 

Let's face it. I'm a Klinean and you'll continue to argue that Kline departs from mainstream Reformed thinking. I happen to think that someone like Murray's covenantalism is significantly more contra-confessional than Kline (though I don't think this about Kline) in light of his flat out denial of a covenant of works. Nevertheless, I won't provide you a dissertation about Kline and the WCF. I'm working 50 hour weeks, have a pregnant wife to take care of, and need to do some more reading! Forgive me if I've seemed abrasive over these disagreements. I think there's room in Reformed thinking for a variety of covenantal views (excluding of course the obvious heresies of FV, NPP, Covenant Nomism, and others). Grace and Peace.


----------



## Casey

Well, brother, you're entitled to your opinion, and I definitely can understand not having the time to respond.  But you're not the first person to leave my posts hanging without a substantive rebuttal. I really wish some Klinean would give those posts of mine a serious response.  If I'm in error in some way I'd prefer to be corrected than left hanging.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, thanks for your reply, but I'm struggling to grasp it. You question whether Rollock believes that Sinai was a covenant of works and conclude this:



armourbearer said:


> These divines should not have later dogmatic frameworks superimposed on their exposition.



You move from Rollock to "these divines" and the accusation of imposing "later dogmatic frameworks" (the other authors are from a latter period and both use the covenant of grace / works language very carefully). Are you saying that no-one believed that Sinai was a covenant of works? Kevan's study shows that there were those who believed that Sinai was a covenant of works [E. F. Kevan, _The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 113-116.)] even if he doesn't expound the third way of Cameron and Owen.

Blessings.


----------



## MW

Marty, No I'm not saying no one believed Sinai was a covenant of works. My comments were restricted to your first class of covenant theologians, and especially Robert Rollock, who was working within a different framework, one more germane to reformation exegesis, which looked at the covenants in terms of the "old" and "new" testaments rather than in terms of the dogmatic categories developed later.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Pertinent to this discussion is wondering how Horton gets to his conclusion. Ultimately, In God of Promise he reads, and understands, the cov't through Galatians 3, 4. I believe the chapter is entitled, "tale of two mothers.' (A friend is borrowing my copy so I cannot quote it, sorry). 

A fundamental problem with Kline, Horton, and co. is they push the distinctiveness card too far. The Mosaic Cov't is law (with a lot of elements og grace), but it also builds off of the Abrahamic Cov't. Christ speaks to the pharisees by saying, "If you were a son of Abraham, you would know me." To be a son of Abraham is to respond in grace, not law. That is not the gospel. 

There is the biggest difference in my estimation. 

Again Horton reacts to Robertson, futhermore his explanation of Cov't Theology is tremendously helpful in critiquing FV and theonomy. 

Central to Kline and Horton is, what is their definition of grace? I think that would be helpful.


----------



## Cotton Mather

Casey,
Thanks for your kind response. Please don't think for a minute that I'm helplessly trying to evade a defense of my position. I really don't have time. One of these days when I have a day off, I'll post some stuff on Kline and the WCF, because I do believe they are consistent. Grace and Peace. 

Robbie,
I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Cotton Mather said:


> Robbie,
> I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?



That is why I ask, "what is his definition of grace?" It certainly is not the same as Robertson's, at most on a functional level. When I studied Cov't Theology (under Duguid) he allowed there to be more than one definition of grace, allbeit, it is not saving grace. We do see this notion elsewhere, i.e. common grace. 

What is the ethos behind Sinai? A continuation of the Abrahamic certainly, but also God is setting forth how his people will live. That is the ethos. Kline makes this point, as does Vos. The Mosaic Cov't typifies the kingdom of heaven. Thus it is not a model for civil governments (see the beauty of critiquing theonomy). You are right in seeing the "Do this and live" element. That is the distinctiveness. God did not have to walk through the carcasses, he already did that. At Sinai he did not cast Gen 15 to the wayside. So there is a continuity element as well. But you can have distinction and diversity with continuity in this economy. 

There is something intriquing a few books later. Numbers 21 is a striking parallel to the Cross and Christ's work there. Israel broke the Cov'tal terms, God by all means should throw them off. He did not. Because he remembered the Abrahamic Cov't. 

The tenor of the Mosaic is conditional, but the foundation for it is Gen. 15. I want to be careful to not simplify any of the Covenants as it robs them of their purpose and function.


----------



## kceaster

Cotton Mather said:


> Robbie,
> I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?



What were God's promises to Abraham? Abraham would have God as God, Abraham would be the father of many, Abraham's children would possess a great land. Every time God remembered His covenant it was the covenant He made with whom? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It wasn't Moses!

If Horton, or anyone else for that matter, attempts to part and parcel out the covenants of Abraham and Moses, to say that this is spiritual/eternal and that is physical/temporal, they are completely overlooking how the covenant was ratified, and what words were spoken. For there are just as many physical/temporal promises made to Abraham, which they consider to be spiritual/eternal, as there were to Moses and the children of Israel. 

More importantly, anyone who thinks this completely ignores the narrative of Hebrews 11. Paul certainly didn't believe that the Mosaic covenant was only a physical/temporal one. He explains well that, by faith, Abraham did all these things because he desired a better city and country, and not a physical one, because he never saw it. He saw the city God prepared for him, though. And Moses, what reward does Paul say he looked for? A physical country and city? I think it is pretty clear that because he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater than physical gain, his was looking forward to a reward that was spiritual, not physical.

This cannot pass as covenant theology. It completely ignores the promise made. Many just skip right over the fact that God's first and foremost promise is that He will be their God and they will be His people. Everything else after that, flows from the first promise. And to believe that God would hold a people to His bosom that had not first atoned for their sins and clung by faith to Him in hope of salvation, is to believe that God promised something to the church in the OT that He never intended to deliver. I'll say it again, only Christ could obey the law in a manner that would receive the promised blessings. And only faith in Christ can claim the promises of God.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Christusregnat

Cotton Mather said:


> I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?




Not to butt in too much, but I would say "yes" to both questions.

The covenant with Moses and the people was a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise:

1. That God would be their God

2. That they would serve under a foreign king, and be delivered by God's free promise

3. That Abraham would be the "heir of the world" Canaan being a mere foretaste of the calling of all nations

Basically, the majority puritan approach (in my opinion) seems to have been to see Moses as an evangelist. He instructed individuals in how to be right with God: through the blood of the lamb, by which the covenant with Moses was ratified. Through the serpent lifted up; through the Passover, the firstfruits, etc.

Also, Moses is God's servant to instruct in civil law, in order that the people, once redeemed, may know how to live in holiness and righteousness all of their days. This encompasses personal holiness, family holiness, ecclesiastical holiness (worship and instruction), and civil holiness.

To confuse or mix Moses' teaching on justification with his teaching on sanctification is an old Jewish fable. There is no "do this in live" except in the same way it is presented in the New Covenant: to call us to perfect obedience, and thereby convict us of our sin and need of Christ. The New Covenant is even more "legal" in this sense, as Christ is constantly warning about the judgment of God, calling for obedience, and threatening curse after curse for those who will not obey.

All that to say, when the NT writers argue against Moses, it is not against Moses that they argue, but against _the Jewish misunderstanding of Moses_. The equate the Jewish misapplication of Moses with "the tenor of the Old Covenant" is not only wrongheaded, but childish and laughable. Moses preached the gospel, believed in Christ, and called upon his hearers to do the same. The land was not taken by works, or by man's sword, but by God's free promise, and unconditional mercy. God didn't choose them, call them, and put them in the Land of Canaan for any merit of theirs, but sheerly by His grace and mercy. 

As for the dividing of the animals passage that you mentioned, please see the following passage for a direct refutation that the Mosaic covenant was by works:

Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 *And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness*. 7 And he said unto him, _*I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.*_ 8 And he said, LORD God, *whereby shall I know *that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, _*Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst*_, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that _*thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years*_; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance...16 But in the fourth generation *they shall come hither *again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that *passed between those pieces*. 18 In the same day *the LORD made a covenant with Abram*, saying, *Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates*: 

Note, it's all of grace that they received the land.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Bygracealone

Brothers,

It's one thing for somebody to disagree with the position, it's quite another to make charges against men like Boston, Owen, Witsius, Rollock, Ames, Turretin, etc. on down to men like Kline, Horton, Clark, etc. as not having a good grasp of covenant theology or as ignoring very popular passages of Scripture. I simply don't think those are fair assessments. You may not agree with their methodology or their conclusions, but at least recognize they are well-respected teachers within the Reformed faith. For example, I have the utmost respect for Rev. Winzer and while I disagree with him on this matter, I wouldn't dare say that he doesn't have a good understanding of covenant theology or that he is ignoring popular passages of Scripture... 

By the way, I don't consider myself to be a "Klinean." I reject the framework hypothesis and while I appreciate the research that has gone into the study of the ANE suzerain treaties, I'm not yet sure about how much weight to give to these findings with regard to interpreting the covenants within Scripture. I say these things so that you all might know that there are people like me who hold to the republication view who are not die hard Klineans. I don't mind labels so long as they fit. So, feel free to call me a Calvinist, Covenanter, or Marrow Man, but the Klinean label doesn't fit. Okay, now back to the issue at hand. 

(I might add, I would much rather have other more competent men take up and defend this position instead of me, but it seems they're all busy at the moment, so I'll do my best recognizing I may be in over my head )

In Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting two covenants, two mountains, and two mothers (to borrow from Horton). What is the basis of the contrast? Do we not see there a contrast of law to grace? Wasn't part of the Galatian heresy one where people had confused law with grace as the basis for salvation? Why does Paul bring up the two covenants, mountains, and women in this letter? 

Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation? 

Please note, I fully recognize the gracious elements of the overarching CoG. In fact, their disobedience did not nullify the eternal promises made to Abraham and his seed, 430 years earlier. By all means, that's gracious. Nevertheless, their disobedience led to the loss of a number of temporal blessings that were promised in the Mosaic covenant. They failed to stay true to their covenant oath:

Exodus 24:6-8 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words." 

I will try to interact with the comments of this thread as I have opportunity. Like the rest of you, I'm quite busy, but this thread and this topic are of great interest to me, so I will try to give as much attention to it as I'm able. I hope this discussion will prove helpful to all of us as we seek to bring glory to our Lord as we study His Word.


----------



## InwooJLee

*Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) by Scott Clark*

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) here.


----------



## InwooJLee

*Owen on the Mosaic Covenant by Michael Brown*

Owen on the Mosaic Covenant here.


----------



## Casey

Bygracealone said:


> Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation?


According to the Westminster Standards, the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. The stipulation/condition/requirement of the covenant of grace is faith, since Adam down to today. The answer to your question is not disobedience _per se_. Read Hebrews 3. They died because they broke the covenant through unbelief. This is the same reason the exile took place. God covenanted with his people at Sinai and it was a covenant of grace. If they sinned, there was a solution to this. But if the people wouldn't believe, then they would be dealt with accordingly. Their lack of law-keeping was the result of unregenerate hearts. But the exile itself had nothing to do with their law-keeping, and everything to do with not believing.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

CaseyBessette said:


> According to the Westminster Standards, the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. The stipulation/condition/requirement of the covenant of grace is faith, since Adam down to today. The answer to your question is not disobedience _per se_. Read Hebrews 3. They died because they broke the covenant through unbelief. This is the same reason the exile took place. God covenanted with his people at Sinai and it was a covenant of grace. If they sinned, there was a solution to this. But if the people wouldn't believe, then they would be dealt with accordingly. Their lack of law-keeping was the result of unregenerate hearts. But the exile itself had nothing to do with their law-keeping, and everything to do with not believing.



Is not disobedience a derivative of unbelief? When I sin it is from the fact that I do not trust in God's grace, the work of Christ in what he has done on my behalf. John Piper's book _Battling Unbelief_ covers this well. I commend it to you.


----------



## Christusregnat

Rev. Bradley,

Thank you for your gracious interaction, and reminders about making sure we use the correct labels!



Bygracealone said:


> In Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting two covenants, two mountains, and two mothers (to borrow from Horton). What is the basis of the contrast? Do we not see there a contrast of law to grace? Wasn't part of the Galatian heresy one where people had confused law with grace as the basis for salvation? Why does Paul bring up the two covenants, mountains, and women in this letter?



Good questions, indeed! Let us take as an indisputable principal of Scripture interpretation that all may be harmonized. With that in mind, the same Scriptures tell us that Moses preached the gospel, and not the law as our salvation:
Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For *unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them*: but the word preached did not profit them, *not being mixed with faith in them that heard it*. 

If Moses preached the gospel, and as the gospel of John shows clearly, testified about Christ our savior, then what is Paul doing stating that Sinai (where Moses preached from) taught a false way of justification?

It appears to me that Moses and Christ both taught one way of salvation. Moses did not teach what the Judaizers taught, in other words. If Paul attacks Moses, he is a false prophet. If he attacks the Judaizers misunderstanding of Moses, he does the same thing that Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount (“you have heard that it was said” etc.). Paul does not argue against the Scriptural doctrine of justification as taught by Moses: HE ATTACKES THE PERVERSION OF IT BY THE JEWS.

For a man to read Moses as if he said what Paul attacks is a gross mishandling of Scripture, and sets the Holy Ghost against Himself. The basis of the contrast Paul makes between law and gospel _was the error of the Galatian heretics_, NOT God’s inspired Word through Moses His servant.



Bygracealone said:


> Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation?



First, there are two issues happening at once. First, there is the civil issue; second, there is the soteriological issue. As far as civil states are concerned, they are to be holy, and to obey the law of God. Blessings and curses accrue according as they obey or disobey (see Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy 28 for more on this). As George Mason said, civil societies do not have souls that live on after this life; therefore their rewards are all meted out in this world. Israel was kicked out of the land for their rebellion and lawlessness. The same reason why the Amorites and Perezites were kicked out of the land. God judges nations by their works, and blesses or curses them accordingly. This is biblical politics, not the doctrine of justification. This is the same in the New Covenant era as it was in the Old.



Bygracealone said:


> Please note, I fully recognize the gracious elements of the overarching CoG. In fact, their disobedience did not nullify the eternal promises made to Abraham and his seed, 430 years earlier. By all means, that's gracious. Nevertheless, their disobedience led to the loss of a number of temporal blessings that were promised in the Mosaic covenant. They failed to stay true to their covenant oath:
> 
> Exodus 24:6-8 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words."



Again, this confounds the civil with the soteriological. God also cursed the Canaanites for their wickedness, and curses America for her wickedness. This is a basic fact of how God set up the world to operate. This doesn’t mean that Moses taught a different view of justification, sanctification, adoption etc. Much to the contrary, it means that the God of Israel has established civil states, and holds them to the line.

Not sure if any of this totally on point, but I hope it helps.

Cheers,


----------



## Casey

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Is not disobedience a derivative of unbelief? When I sin it is from the fact that I do not trust in God's grace, the work of Christ in what he has done on my behalf. John Piper's book _Battling Unbelief_ covers this well. I commend it to you.


Yes, disobedience is a derivative of unbelief. But the covenant of grace isn't broken by disobedience. It's broken by unbelief. Hence their expulsion from the land. Israel's greatest sin was their apostasy. King David committed some horrendous sin but was not expunged from the land -- he had faith and repented.


----------



## Bygracealone

Casey,

Nobody doubts the fact that those who died in the wilderness were an example to show the danger of unbelief. I fully agree with you there. 

However, in Deut. 28, among other places, the threats of the Mosaic Covenant contain temporal judgments which include things like exile and loss of blessing in the land. The prophets are clear in their proclamation against Israel for her disobedience to the law contained in the Mosaic Covenant and they warned the people over and over again that God's judgment was about to come and it did when the Assyrians and the Babylonians overtook the people and the land... The Assyrians and Babylonians were used of the Lord to bring about the threats contained in that covenant. Were all the exiles unbelievers? No, but they all suffered the consequences of breaking the covenant that they swore to as a nation. As a national covenant, they suffered as a nation.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

It is important to remember that Sinai was not a covenant after the fashion of the covenant of grant, instead it was of the suzerain vassal treaties. The cov't of grant was unilateral (like Gen 15.) Suzerain Vassal was where one party protected the other, if they agreed to keep the terms. If not, punishment was ensured.


----------



## Casey

Bygracealone said:


> Casey,
> 
> Nobody doubts the fact that those who died in the wilderness were an example to show the danger of unbelief. I fully agree with you there.
> 
> However, in Deut. 28, among other places, the threats of the Mosaic Covenant contain temporal judgments which include things like exile and loss of blessing in the land. The prophets are clear in their proclamation against Israel for her disobedience to the law contained in the Mosaic Covenant and they warned the people over and over again that God's judgment was about to come and it did when the Assyrians and the Babylonians overtook the people and the land... The Assyrians and Babylonians were used of the Lord to bring about the threats contained in that covenant. Were all the exiles unbelievers? No, but they all suffered the consequences of breaking the covenant that they swore to as a nation. As a national covenant, they suffered as a nation.


Yeah, I agree with you in part -- I think Adam's post is a bit more accurate than what I've said. But let me try to give a little more depth to my answer.

I still think the republication doctrine is entirely erroneous on the basis that the Mosaic Covenant isn't two mixed-up covenants: both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace at the same time. If the Mosaic Covenant was in any sense a republication of the covenant of works (which must be understood to be unto eternal life), then God was giving his people a confused message.

The blessing accrues from a believing heart according to the promise. Otherwise, had they been externally obedient, God would have been obligated to bless them. But they could never have been so obedient because a good work is only the fruit of the Spirit. In other words, by saying that there were blessings promised on the basis of obedience in no way removes the need for faith, but only strengthens the need for faith. There is no need to push this obedience-blessing principle as though it were a covenant of works.

Is it any different today? Are believers today in the covenant of works if God would chastise them for their sin? (He chastises whom he loves.) If I sin and God providentially causes me to suffer for that sin, that doesn't mean I'm in the covenant of works. I believe the same was the case with Israel. If a country attacks America on the basis of bad diplomacy on America's part and I die in the attack, does that mean America is in a national covenant of works? Of course not. If I lay my treasures in heaven and live a life full of good works, I am promised rewards -- does that mean I am in the covenant of works? No, it doesn't.

The basic movement of the Mosaic Covenant is this: "I have saved you, now live according to my law, and if you do you will have blessings and if you don't you're going to be chastised." It's really no different today. Most of Paul's epistles follow this very same pattern. "You have been saved by grace, now walk in the Spirit." That's the nature of the covenant of grace. God saves us so that we may do good works, same with Moses. Chastisement and rewards based on obedience doesn't mean it's a covenant of works. And I think that Hebrews 4 makes it clear that it's a covenant of grace, otherwise belief and faith wouldn't have been mentioned there.


----------



## Casey

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> It is important to remember that Sinai was not a covenant after the fashion of the covenant of grant, instead it was of the suzerain vassal treaties. The cov't of grant was unilateral (like Gen 15.) Suzerain Vassal was where one party protected the other, if they agreed to keep the terms. If not, punishment was ensured.


This, I believe, is an extra-biblical imposition on the text.


----------



## Bygracealone

Hi Casey, 

I appreciate the calm tenor with which you continue to dialog; thanks. 

I noticed you stated that the CoW can only be a soteriological covenant and I think that's where we're speaking past one another (perhaps). 

Again, those who uphold the republication view, are not saying that the Mosaic Covenant is a CoW in the exact same sense and way as the original CoW. We're simply acknowledging the legal foundation and principles of this covenant and noting the meritorious and penal nature of it. Wouldn't you agree that the Mosaic Covenant contains the overall message "do this and you will live in blessing; fail to do this and you will be cursed?" Furthermore, we can't help but to see that Israel suffered for breaking _that_ particular covenant. It wasn't a lack of saving faith, but a lack of obedience to the covenant stipulations that brought God's temporal judgment...


----------



## kceaster

Q. 27. What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?

A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?

A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures of our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.

Perhaps if we backup a bit, we might be able to make sense of this...

First, there is a covenant of works. All mankind, by virtue of being in Adam's family are relegated to this covenant. Even though Adam fell, this covenant is still in force because it was made to Adam and to all his posterity. This covenant has to be kept by all, but none can keep it. Christ must keep it on behalf of all those God elected to save. So there is no abrogation of the covenant of works. It is still in force though none can keep it.

Second, God's wrath is poured out against all those who are under this covenant. And though He may indeed prosper these and cause them to rise and fall according to His purpose, they are not in relationship with Him. He is their creator and their judge, but He does not know them nor their ways.

Third, God chose to extend another covenant in order to save some. In this covenant, saving grace is given to those whose faith (which is also a gift) is firmly fixed upon the promise of Messiah to the OT peoples, or the revealed Christ to the NT peoples.

In all of these categories, God's favor is either salvific or it isn't. There is no in between. The OT tells us that God set His love on the children of Israel and chose them to be a people for Himself. God did not choose them because of their prowess or promise or goodness within themselves. He chose them by His grace and according to the oath He swore to their fathers. He redeemed them from the house of bondage. What does this redemption entail? It is a foreshowing of the redemption from the bondage of sin. 

He didn't do this for any other of Adam's sons. They are still relegated to the covenant of works, doomed to attempt perfect obedience, but never achieving and thus, they have been given their reward. They are eternally damned and will face the just penalty for their sins.

The questions remain. Why would God favor anyone (except His only Begotten) in exchange for their obedience? Without faith it is impossible to please God. A national covenant with completely physical and temporal blessings means that God, in fact, may be pleased by those who are without faith. Surely this means that God will reward those who diligently work and earn his favor, not by the merit of Christ, not by perfect obedience, but by the flesh and it's "righteousness". If God promises reward for obedience to a law, then it is a promise He never intends to keep, because no one can perfectly obey. The land flowing with milk and honey was never to be theirs, the cities they conquered were never to flourish, the children they bore would always be a byword, the bread they ate would always be like ash in their mouths, they would forever hope, but never see the reality of that hope, they would long for their Husband, but would never be requited, they would pronounce the blessings of the Lord's face shining upon them, but they would never feel its warmth. I could go on and on, but the truth is, there is no blessing, either spiritual or physical, that God will give based upon the flesh of Adam's sons. That time is over. What God demands is a clean heart and a contrite spirit. Who can ever accomplish that before a holy God?

So, any covenant extended to the national people of the Jews was not devoid of atonement, repentance, and faith. If this is not so, then why did the children of Israel ever reform and go through cycles of repentance? So they could keep the land!!!! Read the Psalms. Does this sound like a people seeking the Lord's favor for temporal blessings?

Psalm 85:1-7
1 LORD, You have been favorable to Your land;
You have brought back the captivity of Jacob.
2 You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people;
You have covered all their sin. Selah 
3 You have taken away all Your wrath;
You have turned from the fierceness of Your anger. 

4 Restore us, O God of our salvation,
And cause Your anger toward us to cease.
5 Will You be angry with us forever?
Will You prolong Your anger to all generations?
6 Will You not revive us again,
That Your people may rejoice in You?
7 Show us Your mercy, LORD,
And grant us Your salvation.

Psalm 80

1 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,
You who lead Joseph like a flock; 
You who dwell between the cherubim, shine forth!
2 Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh,
Stir up Your strength, 
And come and save us! 

3 Restore us, O God;
Cause Your face to shine, 
And we shall be saved! 

4 O LORD God of hosts,
How long will You be angry 
Against the prayer of Your people?
5 You have fed them with the bread of tears,
And given them tears to drink in great measure.
6 You have made us a strife to our neighbors,
And our enemies laugh among themselves. 

7 Restore us, O God of hosts;
Cause Your face to shine, 
And we shall be saved! 

8 You have brought a vine out of Egypt;
You have cast out the nations, and planted it.
9 You prepared room for it,
And caused it to take deep root, 
And it filled the land.
10 The hills were covered with its shadow,
And the mighty cedars with its boughs.
11 She sent out her boughs to the Sea,[c]
And her branches to the River.[d]

12 Why have You broken down her hedges,
So that all who pass by the way pluck her fruit?
13 The boar out of the woods uproots it,
And the wild beast of the field devours it. 

14 Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts;
Look down from heaven and see, 
And visit this vine
15 And the vineyard which Your right hand has planted,
And the branch that You made strong for Yourself.
16 It is burned with fire, it is cut down;
They perish at the rebuke of Your countenance.
17 Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand,
Upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.
18 Then we will not turn back from You;
Revive us, and we will call upon Your name. 

19 Restore us, O LORD God of hosts;
Cause Your face to shine, 
And we shall be saved!

This doesn't sound like a people who were extended merely physical and temporal promises. They called upon the Lord to be saved, to be forgiven.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Casey

Rev. Bradley, sorry about the tenor of my posts -- I don't want anything but a charitable and God-glorifying conversation. If you think anything I've said (or that I say in the future) is anything but this, please let me know. 

Hmm . . is there any confessional basis in the Westminster Standards to understand a CoWs in any other sense than soteriological? There are two federal heads: Adam (covenant of works) and Christ (covenant of grace), and I don't see how that fits with the Mosaic covenant being a type of covenant of works if Christ is the head of it, since it's an administration of the covenant of grace. I understand that Christ paid the penalty for the broken covenant of works on behalf of his people, but he didn't pay the penalty for a broken Mosaic Covenant . . . ahh, I'm rambling now.

I'm having a hard time seeing how the rewards and punishments mean it's a covenant of works, as per my post #40.


----------



## kceaster

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> It is important to remember that Sinai was not a covenant after the fashion of the covenant of grant, instead it was of the suzerain vassal treaties. The cov't of grant was unilateral (like Gen 15.) Suzerain Vassal was where one party protected the other, if they agreed to keep the terms. If not, punishment was ensured.



This is the biggest danger of Klinean formulations. While we may notice similarities with other surrounding nations, it is a huge mistake to equate these treaties with any covenants God made. WHY?

WHO MADE THE COVENANT IN THE FIRST PLACE? In what book is it written? And by whose authority will make it stand?

Besides, the Holy Spirit will not lead us into all truth regarding suzerain treaties.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe the Mosaic was a combination of revealing the death that the Covenant of Works placed upon man. It revealed the sinfulness of sin and instructed men about their sin. It also pronounced death based upon works. It is called a ministration of death. So it has some connection to the Covenant of Works. That is undeniable. The Law (The Mosaic) is said to be added because of transgressions until Christ comes. 

The Law works death in us as Paul wrote. It is an active work I believe. I agree it is a tutor to keep us until Christ. So I also believe the Mosaic is also a means of Grace. It is condemning to the condemned and a means of grace to the Elect. I believe as an individual covenant it administers both the CofW and the CofG. 



> (2Co 3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
> 
> (2Co 3:7) * But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones*, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:





> (Gal 3:17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
> 
> (Gal 3:18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
> 
> (Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? *It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;* and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.





> (Rom 7:12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
> 
> (Rom 7:13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. *But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.*


----------



## Bygracealone

Casey, no apology needed at all. I meant what I said about your kind tenor in this thread. It makes the discussion pleasant and focused. 

Also, please feel free to call me Steve if you'd like. 

I have to give some more thought to your last post...


----------



## Bygracealone

kceaster said:


> This is the biggest danger of Klinean formulations. While we may notice similarities with other surrounding nations, it is a huge mistake to equate these treaties with any covenants God made. WHY?
> 
> WHO MADE THE COVENANT IN THE FIRST PLACE? In what book is it written? And by whose authority will make it stand?
> 
> Besides, the Holy Spirit will not lead us into all truth regarding suzerain treaties.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Hi KC, as stated previously, I'm still undecided about how much weight to give to the findings of the ANE suzerain treaties. 

That said, to see common elements between the ANE treaties and the covenants in Scripture does not mean one must believe that the human versions came first. For all we know, the covenants of Scripture may have been the model that the others followed? And learning more about the secular covenants of that period may help us to understand the manner in which the people of that period understood covenants generally, which can aid us as we apply the grammatico-historical principle of hermeneutics to the subject.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Since I brought up the ANE treaties, I should respond. By bringing them up I do not equate them with Scripture, they are not inspired, not the word of God, they have no special value. They are man made contraptions. 

I brought them up because Scripture does seem to adopt them as a pattern. Allbeit with differences, thus making them unique. It is helpful to remember that in discussing a covenants nature. 

Scripture was written in a historical context.


----------



## Christusregnat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Law works death in us as Paul wrote. It is an active work I believe. I agree it is a tutor to keep us until Christ. So I also believe the Mosaic is also a means of Grace. It is condemning to the condemned and a means of grace to the Elect. I believe as an individual covenant it administers both the CofW and the CofG.



Mr. Snyder,

Do you believe that this use of the law is different in the New Covenant? Isn't it also true that there is still an evangelistic use of the Law to convict us of our sins and show us our need of Christ? 

If we still use the law in this way, wouldn't we be required to speak of the CoW aspect as part of the gospel message as well? 

In the Corinthian passage, isn't Paul making clear that the Jews had blinders on their hearts, so that Christ was not known to them, rather than that the Mosaic covenant itself was the problem?

2 Cor 3: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 

The glory and light of the New Covenant are much greater, but even in the reading of the Law of Moses, the Jews _would _discern Christ if the veil were removed. Thus, in the same way that Moses preached death because of sin, so does Christ. In the same way Paul preached righteousness by the Messiah, so did Moses.

Just some thoughts,

Adam


----------



## Casey

Robbie, I understand the value in studying the historical context in which the Scriptures were written and don't want to underestimate that aspect of interpreting the Scriptures. It seems inappropriate to fit the biblical covenants into the ANE treaty/covenant boxes -- the Scriptures should be interpreted on its own first. What you said in your post ("It is important to remember that Sinai was not a covenant after the fashion of the covenant of grant, instead it was of the suzerain vassal treaties") presupposes your own interpretation (republication of the covenant of works), instead of substantiating that the Bible teaches it -- in other words, you're begging the question. Besides, it still remains to be seen (in my opinion) whether this view is in any way compatible with the Westminster Standards which state that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace (wherein faith alone is required as a condition of the covenant).


----------



## Christusregnat

Robbie,

I think what may be the point of disagreement is more of a philosophical issue.

The Realist position (or Augustinian, if you like) would tend to say that the covenants made by man are dim reflections of the real covenants, made by God. Thus, Scripture should not be read in the light of the ANE covs, but the ANE covs should be read in the light of the Scriptural teaching. 

I would tend to think that, although historical context is valuable, its value pales in comparison to the theological context of Scripture; which Scripture itself establishes. This method of interpreteting Scripture is made a matter of faith by the WCF:

Chapter 1, IX. The *infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:* and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Cheers,

Adam




Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Since I brought up the ANE treaties, I should respond. By bringing them up I do not equate them with Scripture, they are not inspired, not the word of God, they have no special value. They are man made contraptions.
> 
> I brought them up because Scripture does seem to adopt them as a pattern. Allbeit with differences, thus making them unique. It is helpful to remember that in discussing a covenants nature.
> 
> Scripture was written in a historical context.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Thank you to Casey and Adam. 
Yes, the Westminster Confession and Catechism allows for such a view. The Assembly never said anything on the lines that could be used to support salvation by works (that I know of). The WCF is not meant to be an elaborate discussion on Cov't theology, instead a succinct summary of it. 

The most relevant chapter of the confession (ch. 7) says (7.2) the first cov't made with man was a cov't of works... upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. (7.3) Man, by his fall, made himself incapable of that cov't. And God made a second. Genesis 3:15 sets this forth. 

Christ fulfilled the cov't of works by his active obedience. The Cov't of works condemns us for this reason, but God put our pollution from sin upon Christ at Calvary. Jesus' righteousness God imputed onto us, the elect. 

7.4 tells us how this worked out, or was administered. 
"This Cov't (of grace) was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the jews, all foreseeing Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious" 

The confession draws a sharp distinction between the Old Cov't and the New Cov't. It also mentions the idea of administrations. This is where the debate will begin. Does it allow for a Abrahamic administration (Gen. 15), a Noahic administration, Davidic, or Mosaic? Clearly it allows for a Mosaic one through the language, "in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel" Also in 7.4 we are given a brief list that is by no means exhaustive. It is not intended to be. {also pertinent is WLC # 37} 

Concluding ch. 7 it says, "There are not therefore two Cov'ts of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." I said in my first post that Sinai was founded on grace, not law. I do not believe it to be a replication of the Cov't of works. Instead a type and sign of the kingdom of heaven. It is a continuation of the Cov't of Grace set forth in Gen 3:15 and Gen. 12.

It says nothing of Abraham or David here. But there is a firm believer present that Christ is King, which is based off the davidic cov't (WLC). The priestly role is based off the Mosaic Cov't. 

Is there grace at Sinai? Yes, I never said otherwise. I mentioned that it is distinct and unique in comparison to the other biblical cov'ts in the fact that there is a conditional element. That cannot be denied. But I also must admit that the Confession never says anything about the other administrations of the Old Cov't. In the period of "innocence" when Adam walked with God, he enjoyed great intimacy with the Father and Creator. However when he sinned he fell and took us with him. He fell because he broke the conditions of that Cov't. But there was not grace as we know it there and then. God then, out of his goodness and grace, cov'ts to send a redeemer. He promises to built a people, and when that people come along 400 years after Abraham, he tells them out to live. And if they forsake his cov't, through unbelief and disobedience, they go into exile. God redeems them. The Mosaic Cov't, or administration, is not a replication of the CoW as there was not grace as we know it, or Israel knew it. Instead its entirely different, a brand new paradigm that we must follow. "You will be my people, I will be your God. Obey Me and live. Disobey me and die." We do disobey. Yet Christ comes.


----------



## Bygracealone

Brothers and sisters,

Might I recommend a couple of works? I believe the following articles should prove quite helpful to this discussion:

Here is a work by Lee Irons in which he shows how a number of the Reformers held to the republication view:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/works_in_mosaic_cov.pdf

Here is a great work by Mark Karlberg which includes a number of helpful quotes from Reformed theologians throughout the ages as to how they viewed the Mosaic Covenant:

Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant


Also see these:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/redefining_merit.pdf

And this helpful article on the Law/Gospel contrast wherein Irons refutes Rich Lusk (FV):
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/law_gospel_10args.pdf


----------



## MW

Bygracealone said:


> Might I recommend a couple of works?



Dear Rev. Bradley,

Do any of these works substantiate a republication theory in which God enters into a covenant of works with the nation of Israel concerning the typological land of promise? It is this assertion of a *co-ordinate* covenant of works existing alongside of the covenant of grace which appears to me to be contrary to the Confession, not the assertion by some divines in the reformed tradition that the covenant of works was republished in *subordination* to the covenant of grace. The Confession explicitly states that the typological element in the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace (WCF 7:5). How does one maintain this distinctive of the Confession and still assert that the land was typological and promised under the covenant of works?


----------



## InwooJLee

*Republication of the Covenant of Works (2) by Scott Clark*

Part two is up at the Heidelblog here.


----------



## Bygracealone

armourbearer said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I recommend a couple of works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Rev. Bradley,
> 
> Do any of these works substantiate a republication theory in which God enters into a covenant of works with the nation of Israel concerning the typological land of promise? It is this assertion of a *co-ordinate* covenant of works existing alongside of the covenant of grace which appears to me to be contrary to the Confession, not the assertion by some divines in the reformed tradition that the covenant of works was republished in *subordination* to the covenant of grace. The Confession explicitly states that the typological element in the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace (WCF 7:5). How does one maintain this distinctive of the Confession and still assert that the land was typological and promised under the covenant of works?
Click to expand...


Hello Brother Winzer,

Before I go on, I want to say that I do believe the republication of the CoW at Sinai IS subservient to the CoG concerning salvation. The first use of the Law is found within it, which is a tutor to lead us to Christ. So, there's no disagreement there (at least, I don't think there is...). 

That said, I do believe there's also a typological aspect of the CoW as it relates to the nation of Israel and the earthly inheritance. If I understood your question correctly (and I may not have), then this is the area in which we disagree; am I following you correctly? 

A number of the quotes that follow are taken from some of the works I listed previously. Allow me to apologize beforehand about the lack of footnotes since they don't come through with the cut and paste feature. I'll cite which document they come from and if anybody would like the references, they can find them by going back to the source I'm quoting from. These articles aren't that long, so it should be fairly easy to retrieve the sources. 

From Lee Iron's work: "Works in the Mosaic Covenant"

*John Owen (1616-1683)*

In John Owen’s magisterial seven volume commentary on Hebrews we see a significant new development in covenant theology – the application of the works principle in the Mosaic economy to the typological, temporal level of Israel’s retention of the land.

Commenting on Hebrews 8:6, which speaks of “a better covenant enacted on better promises,” Owen explained in what sense the New Covenant is better than the Old. In so doing, he affirmed that “the covenant on Sinai” contained “a revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse.” The purpose of this was “to shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the covenant of works, and curse attending it.”

However, the Mosaic Covenant “did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation,” since these soteric blessings could only be attained by Christ alone, and by faith in him (p. 82). Although the Mosaic Covenant was a “renovation” (p. 91) of the “the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works,” and thus became, as Paul teaches, “a ministry of condemnation” (pp. 85, 92), yet no one was saved or condemned by virtue of it. “Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works” (pp. 85-86).

To what, then, did the republished covenant of works apply? “As unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal” (p. 85). “Having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan … he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy the land” (p. 83). In other words, the covenant of works aspect of the Mosaic Covenant only operated on the temporal level of Israel’s retention of the land, not on the antitypical level of eternal salvation. Owen’s thinking here points the way to Kline’s distinction between the two levels – the level of the theocratic, typal kingdom, and the level of personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation (see below).

*Herman Witsius (1636-1708)*

Witsius was an important Continental systematizer of covenant theology in the late seventeenth century, whose thought had affinities with that of Owen. He argued that the curse of the covenant, stated in a passage like Deut. 27:26 (and quoted by Paul in Gal. 3:10) “undoubtedly contained the sanction of the covenant of works.”16 Witsius regarded the Old Covenant as “typical or shadowy.” When the New Testament asserts the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, “a better covenant is opposed to that Israelitish covenant, which is not formally the covenant of grace, but is only considered with respect to typical or shadowy pomp” (p. 336). Notice that Witsius regarded the Mosaic Covenant as “not formally the covenant of grace.” It was a “national covenant,” in which “God promised the people, that, if they performed the obedience, he would accept and reward it,” although in the end, “they broke the covenant by their apostacy [sic] … and God refused to be called their God.” However, this pertained only to the typological level, for “the elect among Israel … besides their engagements by the Sinaitic covenant, were joined to God by the covenant of grace which he had solemnly renewed with Abraham.”

Witsius distinguished, but did not separate, the Mosaic Covenant (“the typical covenant”) from the Abrahamic Covenant (“a pure covenant of grace”):

_As the covenant of grace, under which the ancients were, is not to be confounded with, so neither is it to be separated from, the Sinaitic covenant: neither are we to think that believers were without all those things which were not promised by the Sinaitic covenant, and which the typical covenant, because of its weakness and unprofitableness, could not bestow; as they were likewise partakers of the Abrahamic covenant, which was a pure covenant of grace: and hence were derived the spiritual and saving benefits of the Israelites (pp. 336-37)._

A salient feature of the Mosaic Covenant making it “the typical covenant” may be seen in the fact that “long life in the land of Canaan was a pledge of eternal life in heaven” (pp. 354-55).

From Karlberg's work: "Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant"

*Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)* and Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) were important links between Dutch and American Calvinism. Berkhof upholds the dominant Reformed view of the Mosaic Covenant, which sees it as a covenant of works in some restricted sense.

_The Sinaitic covenant included a service that contained a positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works. The law was placed very much in the foreground, giving prominence once more to the earlier legal element. But the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; in it the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace…. It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut 28:1–14 ._

*Charles Hodge (1797–1878)* teaches that the Mosaic Covenant is evangelical (that is to say, a covenant of grace), yet with the addition of the legal element, making it at the same time a legal covenant (a covenant of works). This law-feature is evident in the promise of national security and prosperity of Israel in the land of Canaan, and in the renewed proclamation of the works-principle (hypothetical), as found in the New Covenant as well ( e.g ., Rom 2:6 and Luke 10:25ff .). 

Hodge said the following in his commentary on 2 Corinthians. 

I hope you all appreciate this one as I had to type it out by hand 

...it must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of it under one aspect, is not true under another. 

1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, "What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live" Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. 

2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal. 

But 3, as the gospel contains a renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through a Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who were saved. Thus Moses wrote of Christ, John 5:46; and thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of faith, Rom. 3:21. When therefore the apostle spoke of the old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speaking to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, he represented it as teaching his own doctrine. The law, in every form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the light in which it was viewed... 

From Lee Irons: "The Subservient Covenant"

According to Thomas [G. Michael Thomas, _The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus 1536-1675)_], the view of the Mosaic covenant as a “subservient covenant” was first proposed by *John Cameron (1579-1625)*, a Scottish Presbyterian who immigrated to France and became the founder of the Saumur school of Reformed theology. Cameron was the first Reformed theologian to depart from the traditional “two covenant scheme.” That is, he rejected the Ramist view that all covenants must be classified under one of two categories: either the foedus operum (covenant of works) or the foedus gratiae (covenant of grace). In his treatise on the covenants, De Triplici Dei cum Homine Foedere Theses (Theses on the Threefold Covenant of God with Man), Cameron argued that there are actually three covenants in Scripture: the covenant of nature (with Adam), the subservient covenant (with Israel), and the covenant of grace (which was revealed in the promises before the Mosaic Law, but ultimately fulfilled in the new covenant).

Thomas describes Cameron’s view of the Mosaic covenant as follows:

_The subservient covenant, introduced by Moses, was a repetition of the covenant of nature, in that it also required perfect obedience to the moral law, but it added ceremonial and civil regulations. The promise of this covenant was a happy life in Canaan, but its main purpose was to expose more fully human sinfulness and so prepare the way for the Saviour. Cameron explained that the subservient covenant was that after which the first part of the Bible was named in being called the Old Testament. The adjective ‘old’ did not imply that it was chronologically prior, for the covenant of nature fully and the covenant of grace partly had been revealedbefore it. Rather it was old because defunct, since the coming of Christ (p. 168)._

...

Cameron’s De Triplici Dei cum Homine Foedere Theses was published posthumously in 1642. The English Puritan *Samuel Bolton*, who was nominated as a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly,4 translated Cameron’s theses into English and included them as an appendix to his True Bounds of Christian Freedom (1645).

Thomas writes:

_Bolton listed a number of ways the Reformed had tried to fit the Mosaic law into their covenant theology, noting the difficulties of subsuming it simply under either nature or grace. His introduction to the ‘Theses’ claims that ‘in the ensuing discourse, this doubt is resolved.’ Clearly [Bolton] regarded Cameron’s ‘Theses’ not so much as a new departure but as essentially a statement of what the best theologians had been trying to say all along. Indeed, in all the posthumous criticisms of Cameron’s ‘novelties,’ there was little complaint about his use of three covenants (pp. 168-69)._

As far as I can tell, the Puritan Paperbacks edition of Bolton’s work leaves this appendix out. However, in chapter three (see below), Bolton describes Cameron’s view in detail and concludes: “This is the opinion which I myself desire modestly to propound, for I have not been convinced that it is injurious to holiness or disagreeable to the mind of God in Scripture.”

Mark Karlberg has a helpful description of Bolton’s “subservient covenant” view. Karlberg sees this view as distinct from the “hypothetical covenant” view. The “hypothetical covenant” view is the view that Leviticus 18:5 was a hypothetical offer of eternal life to the Israelites. Karlberg argues that this view would indeed create tension with the underlying covenant of grace. He writes:

_Positively, Bolton distinguishes within the Covenant of Grace the typical, subservient covenant under Moses. That is to say, the law-feature of the Mosaic Covenant has relevance only to the unique typical covenant which is of temporary duration ... Bolton regards the subservient, typical covenant as an integral aspect of the Mosaic administration of the Covenant of Grace._

Good night; I'm spent!


----------



## MW

Dear Rev. Bradley,

Thankyou for taking the time to paste and type the quotations you regard as relevant to this issue.

I don't know what to make of Owen's covenant structure seeing as he allows for substantial and not merely circumstantial changes between the old and new covenants; on that basis I pass him by as something of an anomaly. If one adheres to this peculiar position he certainly has the great theological genius of Owen to support him, but I doubt seriously if Owen was exercising great theological genius in defending this peculiar position. If the new covenant is substantially different because it is made only with the spiritual children of Abraham, or believers, then one wonders on what basis baptism can be administered as a sign of the new covenant to any but "believers."

Herman Witsius and Louis Berkhof explicitly deny the Sinai covenant was a covenant of works. Witsius: "The covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works." Berkhof: "But the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; in it the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace."

I'm not sure how to evaluate Hodge's simplistic explanation. In his Systematic Theology (2:122), he states the matter with more precision: "In the obvious sense of the terms, to say that men are still under that covenant, is to say that they are still on probation; that the race did not fall when Adam fell." He proceeds to state that all men stood their probation in Adam, and do not stand each man for himself.

Personally, I think this idea of making typological elements pertain to the covenant of works effectively destroys the nature of a "type." The type fails in each and every instance because it looks forward to the antitype for its fulfilment. On this basis it might be argued that all types are institutions of the covenant of works, seeing as they all look forward to Jesus Christ as the one who was made under the type to fulfil it on the elect's behalf. But this obscures the fact that the believer under the OT also looked forward to the type's fulfilment in Christ and thereby partook of the benefit of the covenant of grace.

I am still left asking the question as to how one can maintain the distinctive teaching of WCF 7:5, that the types are an administration of the covenant of grace, whilst asserting that the land was a type instituted under a covenant of works made with the nation of Israel?


----------



## kceaster

I'm obviously dense. What does this mean?

Lee Irons: It would appear that the viewpoint dominant in Reformed circles today, that the Mosaic Covenant is merely an administration of the covenant of pure grace, devoid of any works element, is a modern reaction against dispensationalism, and can claim very few advocates within the ranks of the covenant theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Does this mean that Presbyterian and Reformed theologians holding to the WCF prior to this, and the last two centuries did NOT advocate the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the CoG? The Westminster divines did not hold to this?

How about this one.

Lee Irons: It is true, as Karlberg points out, that there were a few Puritan theologians, like David Dickson, who held that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of pure grace, and that Paul in Galatians 3 was merely refuting a Jewish misinterpretation of the Law. But this viewpoint was not dominant until recently. John Murray, for example, recognized that his gracious construction of the Mosaic Covenant represented a departure from classic covenant theology: “The view that in the Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of works, current among covenant theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant.”

Using John Murray here... Isn't this quote directly pointing at Kline? It isn't saying what he wants it to say. Murray would have to have said, "The view that the Mosaic covenant is purely gracious, current among covenant theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant."

I should say that I've never been a Lee Irons fan. But it would seem to me that he's presupposing a lot and misunderstanding all that a person had to say on the matter.

I think the whole reason for departure here is that when Kline or others like him read things like republication or promulgation, they believe that God is using a covenant to bestow or revoke blessings upon the children of Israel. However, this is a misconception. When the classic theologians use these words, they are not associating, by and large, a covenant of works with the attendant blessings and cursings as a way in which God will mete out His relationship to the people. In other words, God is not using the economy of the covenant of works in relationship to His people.

But where these words exist in the writings of classic theologians, they are merely pointing out that the language of the covenant of works is an effective REMINDER of what God requires. It is not a reinstatement attendant to blessings. It is a reminder of what sin accomplishes in the life of the church. Sin brings with it curses, just as it did our first parents. But righteousness through shadow or through reality in Christ brings blessings. There is no reason for us today not to rehearse the covenant of works for the church. We should point out everything about it so that the law can do its job of tutor. But that does not mean that the covenant at Sinai was a departure or even dilineation of God's covenant with His people. It was simply used as a reminder, just as the large stones on either mountain, of the blessings and cursings of righteousness and lawlessness.

If this is what Kline and others are referring to, then I agree with them. However, if they truly believe that God made a covenant apart from the one covenant of grace, in which He would reward the work of the flesh with temporal and physical blessings, then I must vehemently disagree. The promises made to the people in the desert are ours as well. And no one would say that they come to us as a result of the work of our own hands. They come to us in Christ. Surely everyone would agree with that. Yet, if what Kline and others say is true, then these promises were procured by the work of their own hands according to a subservient covenant made by God to His people.

I can't see that, nor can I agree with it. And I really believe that they misunderstand earlier writers and forebears if they believe this is what they're saying.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## aleksanderpolo

InwooJLee said:


> Part two is up at the Heidelblog here.



Randy's view (following Coxe) is part of the discussion!


----------



## Bygracealone

armourbearer said:


> Dear Rev. Bradley,
> 
> Thankyou for taking the time to paste and type the quotations you regard as relevant to this issue.



No problem, my pleasure... Thank you for your patience and for taking the time to interact with me on this.



> I don't know what to make of Owen's covenant structure seeing as he allows for substantial and not merely circumstantial changes between the old and new covenants; on that basis I pass him by as something of an anomaly. If one adheres to this peculiar position he certainly has the great theological genius of Owen to support him, but I doubt seriously if Owen was exercising great theological genius in defending this peculiar position. If the new covenant is substantially different because it is made only with the spiritual children of Abraham, or believers, then one wonders on what basis baptism can be administered as a sign of the new covenant to any but "believers."



Wouldn't the basis for baptism be the same as it was for Abraham with circumcision since Abraham was given the sign prior to the giving of the Law at Sinai?



> Herman Witsius and Louis Berkhof explicitly deny the Sinai covenant was a covenant of works. Witsius: "The covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works." Berkhof: "But the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; in it the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace."



I think they denied that the Sinai covenant was a formal renewal of the CoW in the exact same sense as it was given in the Garden, but held that it was republished in the sense they speak about. For instance, what was said here and quoted previously (underlining mine):

He [Witsius] argued that the curse of the covenant, stated in a passage like Deut. 27:26 (and quoted by Paul in Gal. 3:10) “undoubtedly contained the sanction of the covenant of works.”16 Witsius regarded the Old Covenant as “typical or shadowy.” When the New Testament asserts the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, “a better covenant is opposed to that Israelitish covenant, which is not formally the covenant of grace, but is only considered with respect to typical or shadowy pomp” (p. 336). Notice that Witsius regarded the Mosaic Covenant as “not formally the covenant of grace.” It was a “national covenant,” in which “God promised the people, that, if they performed the obedience, he would accept and reward it,” although in the end, “they broke the covenant by their apostacy [sic] … and God refused to be called their God.” However, this pertained only to the typological level, for “the elect among Israel … besides their engagements by the Sinaitic covenant, were joined to God by the covenant of grace which he had solemnly renewed with Abraham.” 

With Berkhof, I think the same thing could be said. Namely, that he didn't hold to a formal renewal of the CoW in the exact same manner as with Adam, but rather a republication in this sense:

_The Sinaitic covenant included a service that contained a positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works. The law was placed very much in the foreground, giving prominence once more to the earlier legal element._

and going on to then say:

_It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut 28:1–14 ._



> I'm not sure how to evaluate Hodge's simplistic explanation. In his Systematic Theology (2:122), he states the matter with more precision: "In the obvious sense of the terms, to say that men are still under that covenant, is to say that they are still on probation; that the race did not fall when Adam fell." He proceeds to state that all men stood their probation in Adam, and do not stand each man for himself.



In light of his commentary on 2 Cor., I'm not sure what to do with this either, except to note that he did hold that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant as it pertained to the earthly promises and threats. What he states in his systematics seems to be dealing with the matter of the CoW more narrowly. 



> Personally, I think this idea of making typological elements pertain to the covenant of works effectively destroys the nature of a "type." The type fails in each and every instance because it looks forward to the antitype for its fulfilment. On this basis it might be argued that all types are institutions of the covenant of works, seeing as they all look forward to Jesus Christ as the one who was made under the type to fulfil it on the elect's behalf. But this obscures the fact that the believer under the OT also looked forward to the type's fulfilment in Christ and thereby partook of the benefit of the covenant of grace.
> 
> I am still left asking the question as to how one can maintain the distinctive teaching of WCF 7:5, that the types are an administration of the covenant of grace, whilst asserting that the land was a type instituted under a covenant of works made with the nation of Israel?



I believe this can be maintained by affirming that the older (law) shall serve the younger (grace/gospel). The elements of the law in the Mosaic covenant are indeed subservient to the CoG. And at the same time, the conditional earthly promises of blessing (conditioned upon obedience, which Israel ultimately failed to secure) point us again to fulfillment by Jesus as the last Adam.


----------



## David Reese

*The Older Shall Serve the Younger*

Probably not a good idea to begin commenting on a thread that I have not read all the way through...

...but, throwing caution to the wind...

I wonder if the idea of the older (Law) serving the younger (Gospel) is helpful in sorting out the Mosaic Covenant? We are definitely dealing with the CoG, but the prominence of Law is so explicit that it throws us for a loop. Along with that are the facts that like Adam, Israel was formed first, and then placed into the Land (Garden), with a condition to "obey and stay" or "disobey and be cast out". Israel disobeyed, and like Adam, was cast out of the Garden-Land...plus, Christ is not explicitly called "the 2nd Adam" (although, based on Rom. 5, I think this is thoroughly biblical), but the "Last Adam", seeming to leave the door open to more than 2...

...thus, that there are "echoes" of the CoW in the Sinai Covenant, seems undeniable.

But, we also have a sacrificial system given, calls for repentence, and offers of forgiveness. We have types and shadows of a coming Savior (e.g. Deut. 18, etc.), which move us beyond the CoW, and underscore that there is mercy and grace herein.

So what gives?

The Law, which was originally given to Adam as a CoW, is now being republished and used in service to the Gospel to drive sinners to Christ (cf. Gal. 3). Law, as it did in the CoW, always holds out a promise of life (Rom. 7:10) for obedience, but since the party it was being re-imposed upon (National Israel) was already in breach of the CoW (in their federal head Adam), it could not be given to them again as a CoW, although it surely "echoed" (pedagogically) that first historical covenant.

Petto says that Sinai was ultimately not about Israel, but Christ. For Him, and Him alone, the republication of the Law at Sinai was the terms of the CoW that He would fulfill on behalf of His people. It gave concrete and historical context for His obedience (like the prohibition to Adam in the Garden did). He was, therefore, "born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4), which is the same Law given to Adam and Israel.

Since the Law at Sinai was to explicate the terms of the CoW for Christ, it is no wonder that we see the shadow of it in the Mosaic Covenant. But since the second covenant...a CoG...has been made (thanks be to God!), we cannot say that Israel was again under the CoW in the way that Adam and Christ were.

But, on the national scale, there seems to me to clearly be a pedagogical replaying of Adam under the CoW in Israel under the Sinai Covenant. Not a true CoW, but a teaching tool to continue to remind them of their need for a Savior, etc.

Thus, again, we have the Older (Law Covenant), serving the Younger (Gospel Covenant), teaching and driving Israel out of herself and unto her only hope...the Savior Jesus Christ.

Hope that is helpful and not redundant,

David Reese


----------



## David Reese

Participants,

I realize now that the discussion has moved a bit deeper (e.g. on what basis the blessings were obtained in the Sinai Covenant, etc.). Sorry if my previous post is a distraction from what you are particularly discussing...

David Reese


----------



## MW

Rev. Bradley,

You asked, "Wouldn't the basis for baptism be the same as it was for Abraham with circumcision since Abraham was given the sign prior to the giving of the Law at Sinai?"

Wasn't circumcision a "national" covenant marker, and therefore done away in the NT? Didn't the "nation" fail with respect to circumcision as equally as with respect to the land? It would appear that the rationale for making the typical land an institution of the covenant of works also applies to circumcision, and in fact to all the types. If the "nation" had have been under the covenant of works, then the "physical seed" element would be done away under the "new covenant." Thankfully neither is the case, but the connection is one which needs explanation from the *co-ordinate* covenant point of view.

Concerning Witsius and Berkhof, please note that only a constituent element of the covenant of works was enacted at Sinai, not the covenant of works per se. I will embolden the relevant underlined sections of your quotations. Witsius: "undoubtedly contained *the sanction* of the covenant of works." Berkhof: "that contained a positive reminder of *the strict demands* of the covenant of works." When these are taken in connection with their clear statements that God did not enter into a covenant of works with the nation, it effectively rules out the *co-ordinate* covenant theory.

Hodge was using simplistic language and did not fully explain himself. I pass him by since I think we have brought him to an impasse.

Concerning WCF 7:5, you write,



> I believe this can be maintained by affirming that the older (law) shall serve the younger (grace/gospel). The elements of the law in the Mosaic covenant are indeed subservient to the CoG. And at the same time, the conditional earthly promises of blessing (conditioned upon obedience, which Israel ultimately failed to secure) point us again to fulfillment by Jesus as the last Adam.



This is the *subordinate* theory. As noted earlier, I don't think this is ruled out by WCF 7:5. As long as the types are regarded as primarily an institution of the covenant of grace then the spirit of WCF 7:5 is maintained. However, the *co-ordinate* theory does not teach that the Sinai covenant was essentially a covenant of grace under which the covenant of works was subordinated. It teaches that two covenant were effectively operating side by side -- the gracious covenant made with Abraham and the Mosaic covenant of works. It is this particular point which I believe is contrary to Scripture and the Confession.

Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry guys I have not been able to participate. I have been getting ready for a race I am going to tomorrow. I just got on for the first time today. And I just logged on to get a quick look. I will respond later. Sorry for my absence in this discussion. I will try to participate by Monday. 

Be Encouraged,
Randy


----------



## Cotton Mather

Thanks for all the discussion friends. I had no idea that this post would generate so much discussion and disagreement. Nevertheless I really feel I've learned more from it. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Bygracealone

David Reese said:


> Participants,
> 
> I realize now that the discussion has moved a bit deeper (e.g. on what basis the blessings were obtained in the Sinai Covenant, etc.). Sorry if my previous post is a distraction from what you are particularly discussing...
> 
> David Reese



Dave, 

No distraction at all. I appreciate your input and would love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject. 

Come on in, the water is fine


----------



## Christusregnat

Bygracealone said:


> Come on in, the water is fine



[video=youtube;82_bhD0_Trw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_bhD0_Trw[/video]

If you like, fastforward to the last minute or so.

Cheers,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Christusregnat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law works death in us as Paul wrote. It is an active work I believe. I agree it is a tutor to keep us until Christ. So I also believe the Mosaic is also a means of Grace. It is condemning to the condemned and a means of grace to the Elect. I believe as an individual covenant it administers both the CofW and the CofG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> Do you believe that this use of the law is different in the New Covenant? Isn't it also true that there is still an evangelistic use of the Law to convict us of our sins and show us our need of Christ?
> 
> If we still use the law in this way, wouldn't we be required to speak of the CoW aspect as part of the gospel message as well?
> 
> In the Corinthian passage, isn't Paul making clear that the Jews had blinders on their hearts, so that Christ was not known to them, rather than that the Mosaic covenant itself was the problem?
> 
> 2 Cor 3: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Click to expand...



I am not sure I understand your question. But I will just quote a passage for you showing the superiority of the New over the Mosaic.



> (Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> (Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> (Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
> 
> (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> (Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> (Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.



The blinding of the mind was upon the non elect. The veil mentioned is a blinding that is spiritual. But the Elect were still justified before God even under the promises of the Mosaic. That is why I still hold that the Mosaic held an active part in condemning (as I mentioned before in a prior post) and it still pointed to an atoning sacrifice for sin which reveals the Covenant of Grace for the Elect. The promises which are fulfilled in Christ are of the Covenant of Grace. The ministration of death is from the Covenant of Works. The law was added because of offences as I showed.



> (Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? *It was added because of transgressions,* till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.






Christusregnat said:


> The glory and light of the New Covenant are much greater, but even in the reading of the Law of Moses, the Jews _would _discern Christ if the veil were removed. Thus, in the same way that Moses preached death because of sin, so does Christ. In the same way Paul preached righteousness by the Messiah, so did Moses.
> 
> Just some thoughts,
> 
> Adam



The only thing I would add is that Christ came not to condemn but to save. The world was already condemned because of the CofW. There is forgiveness found in the New Covenant. It is a ministry of reconciliation as 2 Corinthians 5 states. It isn't a ministration of death. It is a New Covenant that can't be broken as the Old was and everyone who is in it has their sins forgiven as Jeremiah and the book of Hebrews mentions. 



> (Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> 
> (Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
> 
> (Joh 3:19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
> 
> (Joh 3:20) For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
> 
> (Joh 3:21) But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


----------



## Christusregnat

Mr. Snyder,

The point I was seeking to make in my previous post is that, just as under the Mosaic Covenant, the gospel was preached, with the law subserving the purpose of the gospel, this is the same in the New Covenant. When we preach the gospel, we must preach the Law. When we preach the Law, we must preach the gospel. No gospel, no law. No law, no gospel. 

There are three uses of the law, one of which is to convict the sinner, and drive him to Christ. This was the same in the Old Covenant as in the New:

2 Cor 14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. 15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, *and in them that perish*: 16 To the one we are *the savour of death unto death*; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? 

The gospel of Christ in the New Covenant brings death to the wicked.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the *new covenant*, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, *much more* shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven....28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For *our God is a consuming fire*.

The new covenant is much more severe on those who reject it. We preach the God Who is a flaming fire.

By this, I'm not seeking to undermine the superiority of the NC over the OC. It's the difference between a picture of my wife that I enjoy, and holding her in my arms. I prefer the latter.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I disagree with this.



> The gospel of Christ in the New Covenant brings death to the wicked.



They are already Dead. The law might reveal death and the need to repent to a regenerate soul but Christ brings Salvation for the Elect. The New Covenant is a Covenant of salvation. Those found in the Covenant are eternally saved. The non elect can not believe because they are dead and condemned already. 

I understand the three uses of the law.


----------



## RTaron

Christusregnat said:


> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> It's the difference between a picture of my wife that I enjoy, and holding her in my arms. I prefer the latter.



A fitting analogy Adam, I like it. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:32


----------



## Christusregnat

Mr. Taron,

Glad you like it! I got it from someone else, so I can't claim ownership 

Adam




RTaron said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> It's the difference between a picture of my wife that I enjoy, and holding her in my arms. I prefer the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fitting analogy Adam, I like it. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
> Ephesians 5:32
Click to expand...


----------



## Christusregnat

Mr. Snyder,

my basic point is that the law is subservient to the gospel in both the old and new covenants. Do you agree with this? Both covenants use the killing law:

Romans 7:8-10 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

This is a NC experience, is it not?

Adam





PuritanCovenanter said:


> I disagree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel of Christ in the New Covenant brings death to the wicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are already Dead. The law might reveal death and the need to repent to a regenerate soul but Christ brings Salvation for the Elect. The New Covenant is a Covenant of salvation. Those found in the Covenant are eternally saved. The non elect can not believe because they are dead and condemned already.
> 
> I understand the three uses of the law.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Christusregnat said:


> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> my basic point is that the law is subservient to the gospel in both the old and new covenants. Do you agree with this? Both covenants use the killing law:
> 
> Romans 7:8-10 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
> 
> This is a NC experience, is it not?
> 
> Adam



I am not so sure it is subservient. As a Covenant it stands on its own. It kills because of the sin and death that Adam passed unto us all. The Gospel redeems the elect who are subject to the law or ministration of death. It brings the Elect out from the ministration of death and reconciles them to God. I am speaking of the CofW when I am referring to the ministration of death.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just an FYI.... I have changed my view of the Mosaic since we had this discussion four years ago after much prayer and reading the scriptures. 

You can read my thoughts here. Both the Old and New Covenant are the same in substance as I know them to be an Administration of the Covenant of Grace. 

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? - Blogs - The PuritanBoard

Thread will remain closed since it took place four years ago. If you want you can start a new thread on this topic.


----------

