# Covenant, conditionality, and condemnation



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

In the various threads on the nature of the Mosaic covenant, advocates for viewing it as a republication of the covenant of works often use two lines of argument to prove their position. The first line of argument is the aspect of conditionality; it is maintained that a covenant of grace, strictly so called, cannot have conditions. The second line of argument is the aspect of condemnation; it is maintained that a covenant of grace, strictly so called, does not lead to condemnation but to salvation.

We read in John 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." This text is undoubtedly speaking about the gospel as an administration of the covenant of grace. In this administration there is conditionality -- the exercise of faith in the revelation of the only begotten Son of God. There is also condemnation to those who have not exercised faith in the Son of God.

It is an obvious fact that conditionality and condemnation are part and parcel of the administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel. Conditionality and condemnation are not brought in as another covenant, but are components of the gospel. It is undoubtedly true that they are administered (preached and signified) in subordination to the eternal purpose of the covenant of grace, which is to redeem the elect throught Jesus Christ; but it still remains an undisputed fact that the covenant of grace is administered under the gospel by means of conditional promises of eternal life and the threat of eternal damnation.

Given this state of affairs, it must be admitted that the presence of conditionality and condemnation under the law is no argument for the Mosaic economy being viewed as a republication of the covenant of works as a distinct covenant to the Abrahamic promise. If the fulness of the gospel includes conditionality and condemnation within its terms of administration then we would expect that the law, as a shadow of the good things to come, would also be administered with the components of conditionality and condemnation included in it.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 22, 2009)

Mr. Winzer, one verse which has always intrigued me in this matter is Rev. 2:5; yet I don't recall that I have seen it brought up in dialogue before, which makes me leery of drawing the connection. It seems this verse provides a direct parallel to the conditionality of the Old Covenant, not just on a _personal_ level, but on an _ecclesiastical_ level as well. Do you think this is a sound parallel/interpretation, or is there something lacking?


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 22, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Given this state of affairs, it must be admitted that the presence of conditionality and condemnation under the law is no argument for the Mosaic economy being viewed as a republication of the covenant of works as a distinct covenant to the Abrahamic promise.



If this is true then Herman Witsius's first argument in his The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace carries no weight then.



> Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, Whether it was a covenant of works, or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe, that, *in the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works. For both the very same precepts are inculcated, on which the covenant of works was founded, and which constituted the condition of that covenant; and that sentence is repeated, "which if a man do he shall live in them," Lev. xviii. 5. Ezek. xx. 11, 13.* by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom. x. 5. And *the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them," Deut. xxvii. 26.* *Now the apostle declares, that this is the curse of the law, as the law is opposed to faith, or the covenant of grace, Gal. iii. 10, 12.* Nay, as the requirement of obedience was rigid under the ministry of Moses, the promises of spiritual and saving grace were more rare and obscure, the measure of the Spirit granted to the Israelites, scanty and short, Deut. xxix. 4. and on the contrary, the denunciation of the curse frequent and express; *hence the ministry of Moses is called, "the ministration of death and condemnation," 2 Cor. iii. 7, 9. doubtless because it mentioned the condemnation of the sinner*, and obliged the Israelites to subscribe to it. [emphases mine]


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 22, 2009)

Hermann Witsius is one of the Covenant Theologians mentioned as one of fourteen types of Republicationists in the book, "The Law is not of Faith" (P and R).

Republicationist teaching doesn't seem to have got into the WCF, apart from the teaching that the moral law given to Adam was republished at Sinai, but that is different from saying that the Covenant of Works was Republished. 

There are real logical problems in saying that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai.

The CoW has been understood by Covenant Theologians to mean that Adam could save himself and his posterity by perfect obedience. We can understand how that relates to Christ, but it cannot relate to Israel, or cannot relate to Israel in the same way and sense it relates to Christ.

Therefore clearer language and distinctions should be used about what precisely is being talked about for this area of theological study to progress.


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

> in the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.



Witsius has his own view, which doesn't equate to calling the Mosaic covenant a republication of the covenant of works, but as including elements from both covenants of works and grace. Please note the preposition -- *in* the ministry of Moses. It indicates inclusion, not identification.


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Do you think this is a sound parallel/interpretation, or is there something lacking?



Paul, that is perfectly sound.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 22, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> The CoW has been understood by Covenant Theologians to mean that Adam could save himself and his posterity by perfect obedience. We can understand how that relates to Christ, but it cannot relate to Israel, or cannot relate to Israel in the same way and sense it relates to Christ.
> 
> Therefore clearer language and distinctions should be used about what precisely is being talked about for this area of theological study to progress.



Witsius does use "clearer language and distinctions." He adds:



> Thirdly, We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation. For, we have already proved (B. 1. chap. ix. section 20) that this could not possibly be renewed in that manner with a sinner, en account of the justice and truth of God, and the nature of the covenant of works, which admits of no pardon of sin. See also Hornbeck.Theol. Pract. tom. 2. p. 10. Besides, if the Israelites were taught to seek salvation by the works of the law, then the law bad been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before. But now says the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. "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." The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace.



Republicationism doesn't confuse the idea of earned merit and Life upon fulfillment of the CoW with the conditional aspect that is provided for in the Sinaitic Covenant. Now, as I state this, I am aware that there are are other views when it comes to Republication and I expressly deny those views which state that the Sinaitic Covenant was not a gracious (in the redemptive sense) covenant.




armourbearer said:


> > in the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.
> 
> 
> 
> Witsius has his own view, which doesn't equate to calling the Mosaic covenant a republication of the covenant of works, but as including elements from both covenants of works and grace. Please note the preposition -- *in* the ministry of Moses. It indicates inclusion, not identification.



Indeed, but neither does he label it as a Covenant of Grace.



> If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

Chippy said:


> Indeed, but neither does he label it as a Covenant of Grace.



Which means he is irrelevant to the point being discussed in the present thread.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 22, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, but neither does he label it as a Covenant of Grace.
> ...


 
My argument has to be viewed in light of what I simply wanted to point out in my first post.



Chippy said:


> If this is true then Herman Witsius's first argument in his The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace carries no weight then.



I am aware that it is doubtful whether one can equate Witsius's view with what is currently known as _Republication_. I am not arguing for Republication _per se_. What I am trying to point out here is that Witsius identifies both the "conditional aspect" and the "condemning aspect" of the Sinaitic Covenant with that of the Covenant of Works (the one made with Adam).


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 23, 2009)

I am wary of the synergistic overtones of claiming conditionality in the Covenant of Grace. When Scripture admonishes repentance and belief, it does so in the context of the Spirit's unmerited working in those elected to salvation. Therefore, to assert conditionality in the sense that to be a partaker of the benefits of the covenant one has to fulfill certain conditions is an affront to unconditional election and is unwarranted. 

If ever conditionality figures in the Covenant of Grace, it would be that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements, stipulations, and demands of the Covenant of Works, with the merits thereof unconditionally imputed to the elect, not in the consideration of the believer's "response".


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 23, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> There are real logical problems in saying that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai.
> 
> The CoW has been understood by Covenant Theologians to mean that Adam could save himself and his posterity by perfect obedience. We can understand how that relates to Christ, but it cannot relate to Israel, or cannot relate to Israel in the same way and sense it relates to Christ.
> 
> Therefore clearer language and distinctions should be used about what precisely is being talked about for this area of theological study to progress.



I believe you misunderstand the point of the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai. The Sinaitic Covenant was not a covenant unto the salvation of men's souls but a covenant unto the establishment of the theocratic, geopolitical entity of Israel. If the Adamic Covenant stipulated eternal life upon perfect obedience, the Sinaitic Covenant vowed possession of the land and prosperity therein upon fulfillment of the covenantal terms. In both cases, the nature of the Covenant of Works is apparent: _Do this and this I will do_.

"But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me" (Hosea 6:7).


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 23, 2009)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > There are real logical problems in saying that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai.
> ...



What was the condition of the Israelites remaining in the Land? It surely wasn't perfect obedience like Adam. If it wasn't perfect obedience by Israel how can it be a RoCoW? The Sinaitic Covenant cannot be a RoCoW.

The ceremonial law is an inherent part of the Sinaitic Covenant. It eloquently expressed the Gospel and taught men the way of salvation. I don't know how you can say that the Mosaic Covenant was "not a covenant unto the salvation of men's souls"?

(a) The republication of the moral law at Sinai taught the Israelites about their sinfulness.

(b) The penal law taught the Israelites that their sins, without a sacrifice, deserved death.

(c) The ceremonial law taught the Israelites who had eyes to see and ears to hear, the way of salvation by penal substitutionary atonement through imputation of sin.

What you are talking about above was at best a secondary aspect of Sinai, as a typological teaching tool, for a childhood church that needed such teaching tools, to help keep Israel on the straight and narrow. Being cast out of the Land was a type of being cast out of God's favour.

Comparison and contrast of some aspects of Sinai and the CoW

I'm sure others on this board can think of others.

CoW  So-called RoCoW

Only made with one Man, Adam. Made with the whole nation of Israel.

On condition of perfect obedience. On condition of less than perfect obedience.

Not by grace but by works. By grace leading to works.

No-one was left in the Garden Some Jews left in the Land.
when Man fell.

Cast out forever. Permitted to return.

Specific condition of works. What was the specific condition?

If the Jews had been able to remain in the Land it would only have been of God's grace in granting them faith and obedience as a nation. Would they have been able to say that it was of their own good works? Then they would have had something to boast about!!



> I believe you misunderstand the point of the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai. The Sinaitic Covenant was not a covenant unto the salvation of men's souls but a covenant unto the establishment of the theocratic, geopolitical entity of Israel.


This could not be done without grace, leading to faith, leading to obedience.



> the Sinaitic Covenant vowed possession of the land and prosperity therein upon fulfillment of the covenantal terms.


This could not be done without grace, leading to faith, leading to obedience.

You say that you don't like drawing attention to conditionality in covenant theology. But if conditions are there it is part of the Truth. Then you ironically put great conditions of not faith by grace but their own unaided works upon the Israelites under the Mosaic Covenant for them to be allowed to remain in the Land.

In the New Covenant Christ is doing the same thing, in reality rather than in typology, with graceless and faithless and fruitless and Christless churches, as He did with graceless and faithless and fruitless and Christless Israel: casting them out of His visible Kingdom and into Hell. 

As someone who deserves Hell also, that gives me no pleasure.



> In both cases, the nature of the Covenant of Works is apparent: Do this and this I will do.



In the case of Sinai, should that not be, _Do this [by faith through grace] and this I will do._

In Britain we call something like the RoCoW a "dog's breakfast". I don't know if they use the same expression in the Phillipines.  

If it is further studied and honed by theologians it may develop from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan and be incorporated prioperly as an aspect of CT, but with a different name to RoCoW.


----------



## Herald (Nov 23, 2009)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > There are real logical problems in saying that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai.
> ...



The conditionality of the Sinaitic Covenant is not a CoW in any sense as the one made with Adam. The Adamic Covenant had elements of justification and sanctification; eternal life granted upon perfect obedience. This covenant in no way resembles the Sinaitic Covenant in form or function. It is a lesser covenant than the CoW, in that the CoW held the promise of eternal life, something that the Sinaitic Covenant could not offer.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 23, 2009)

Herald said:


> The Adamic Covenant had elements of justification and sanctification; eternal life granted upon perfect obedience.



What do you mean by "elements of justification and sanctification"? (I assure you this is an honest question.)


----------



## Herald (Nov 23, 2009)

Chippy said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > The Adamic Covenant had elements of justification and sanctification; eternal life granted upon perfect obedience.
> ...



The Cow offered Adam and his posterity eternal life through perfect obedience. It could be said that Adam would have been justified through his obedience. During his obedience to the CoW, Adam would be set apart from disobedience; He would be holy as his heavenly Father was holy. This is what we see as a benefit made possible by the second Adam, Christ. We are justified and progressively sanctified. The Siantic Covenant had no such component.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 23, 2009)

Hey Everyone!

I would also point out that the idea of an unconditional covenant is unheard of in the ancient near east. All covenants had conditions.

From what I can understand, the difference is that, in the covenant of grace, God fulfills those conditions in our place, and then works those conditions into us through sanctification.

Also, I don't think Hosea 6:7 is the best text to use at this point since it is notouriously obscure. First of all, there is the issue of whether you have a bet or a kaph in front of 'adam. The reason why a bet would make sense here is because you have the second colon beginning with "there they acted faithlessly against me." Because of the "there," and the fact that there is no place indicated, it is possible that this could have originally been "In Adam, they passed over the covenant..." Then, Adam would be the place name known from both the Bible and epigraphic material. Also, one has to ask, since final maters were sometimes left off of the end of words, if what is meant here is the Hebrew term 'adama, meaning "ground." The sense then would be, "They passed over the covenant like [one passes over] land." Also, one could take 'adam to mean the generic "human," meaning something like, "like humans will most assuredly do, they passed over the covenant."

All of these interpretations have difficulties. The interpretation that was presented has to ask why an adverb such as "there" is used when there is no place name in the context. The interpretation that takes 'adam as a place name needs to answer why it is that there are no manuscripts or translations that read as such. The interpretation that takes 'adam to mean "ground" has an unstated assumption that the text originally left off the final he when it would cause such confusion. With the final interpretation, one has to deal with the fact that there were humans in the Bible who kept their covenants [i.e. Abraham], and that this interpretation still does not adequately deal with the "there." Hence, all of these interpretations have difficulties, and it seems really difficult to use this text in the context of a discussion like this.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 24, 2009)

Richard,

I believe it would benefit the discussion if we do not equivocate on what "_grace_" means. You categorize under "_grace_" potencies that have nothing to do with salvation. When I speak of "_grace_", I refer to "_grace unto salvation_" and not the energizing factor that enables man to do this or that, i.e., "_common grace_".



> The ceremonial law is an inherent part of the Sinaitic Covenant. It eloquently expressed the Gospel and taught men the way of salvation. I don't know how you can say that the Mosaic Covenant was "not a covenant unto the salvation of men's souls"?
> 
> (a) The republication of the moral law at Sinai taught the Israelites about their sinfulness.
> 
> ...



In this instance, you fail to realize the disparate natures of the stipulations inherent in the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants. Salvation, and therefore grace, was promised in the former, with God declaring that it is through Abraham that all the nations shall be blessed, while the latter makes no claim to personal salvation but to national sovereignty under God. While it is true that the Torah prefigured Christ, salvation for those under it was not in any way predicated on the terms of the Sinaitic Covenant but the Abrahamic. Therefore, "_grace_", i.e., "_grace unto salvation_", was not an ontological factor in the Sinaitic Covenant.

"_Thus, it is not only the case that the covenant of promise (Abraham and his seed) appears as the solitary basis for real hope in the Old Testament, but that it appears already in the Law itself—that is, the Law considered as Torah, the part of the Old Testament that is particularly concerned with the giving of the commands at Mount Sinai_". (*Michael Horton*, Introducing Covenant Theology, ch. 3, p. 44) 




> What was the condition of the Israelites remaining in the Land? It surely wasn't perfect obedience like Adam. If it wasn't perfect obedience by Israel how can it be a RoCoW? The Sinaitic Covenant cannot be a RoCoW.



"_It is important, however, to distinguish between the law's strictness in relation to individual salvation (demanding an absolute perfection that we cannot fulfill since the fall) and in relation to the national covenant with Israel (requiring an external conformity, with provisions for default). What degree of disobedience God could put up with in order to allow Israel to keep its tenure in his land was always up to God, of course. His patience (long-suffering) received all too many opportunities to be displayed. Yet the very fact that God does exercise patience in this relationship points up that the Sinaic covenant is not simply identical to the pre-fall Adamic covenant. After the fall, a covenant of works arrangement—even for a national covenant rather than individual salvation, cannot really get off the ground if absolutely perfect obedience is the condition. Remember, the purpose of the Jewish theocracy (i.e., the old covenant) was to point forward through types to the coming Messiah. But how could God maintain a typological kingdom that kept the focus of future anticipation on Christ if that kingdom's existence depended at every moment on obedience? If the terms in Canaan were as strictly enforced as they were in Eden, the Israelites would never have even made it to Canaan (as we see in Exodus 32—34, not to mention in their testing of God in the desert).

What was necessary on the nation's part was, as M.G. Kline expresses it, an 'appropriate measure of national fidelity.' Enough covenantal obedience was necessary to keep the typology legible, serving its purpose of directing attention to the true and lasting kingdom of God that it prefigured. This does not mean that the world only needed a redeemer who could roughly approximate the requirement of perfect obedience. After all, the covenant of works made with Adam and his posterity still requires fulfillment if anyone is to be saved. There must be a second Adam, not just a second Israel. There are both continuities and discontinuities between the covenant of works made with Adam and the republication of the works-covenant at Sinai, differences that are determined largely by changing historical contexts viz., the fall and God's determination to have a typological system whose every detail was designed to prefigure his Son's arrival in world history)._" (*Michael Horton*, Introducing Covenant Theology, ch. 2, pp. 32-33)


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2009)

Chippy said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The CoW has been understood by Covenant Theologians to mean that Adam could save himself and his posterity by perfect obedience. We can understand how that relates to Christ, but it cannot relate to Israel, or cannot relate to Israel in the same way and sense it relates to Christ.
> ...



I'm glad Witsius is clearer on this than some.

But wouldn't it be simpler just to say that the Israelites were reminded of the law in order to lead them to salvation. This would accord with the Confession and also avoid some logical difficulties of a RoCoW.

Remember that one of the purposes of the law in the New Covenant and the threat of being cast out of God's favour into Hell is to drive men to Christ. So there are parallels in the New Covenant with the use of the law to drive men to Christ and with the typological set up of the Land.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 11:06:42 EST-----

*Quote from Michael Horton*


> Yet the very fact that God does exercise patience in this relationship points up that the Sinaic covenant is not simply identical to the pre-fall Adamic covenant. After the fall, a covenant of works arrangement—even for a national covenant rather than individual salvation, cannot really get off the ground if absolutely perfect obedience is the condition. Remember, the purpose of the Jewish theocracy (i.e., the old covenant) was to point forward through types to the coming Messiah. But how could God maintain a typological kingdom that kept the focus of future anticipation on Christ if that kingdom's existence depended at every moment on obedience? If the terms in Canaan were as strictly enforced as they were in Eden, the Israelites would never have even made it to Canaan (as we see in Exodus 32—34, not to mention in their testing of God in the desert).



I'm glad to see Horton dealing with some of the queries I had, above.

But if this Sinaitic Covenant is as he says it is, why on earth call it a "Republication of the Covenant of Works", since it is clearly very different and _essentially different_ to the Covenant of Works, as I was trying to show above by comparing the CoW with the so-called RoCoW. "RoCoW" is at best very misleading.

*Quote from Michael Horton*


> What was necessary on the nation's part was, as M.G. Kline expresses it, an 'appropriate measure of national fidelity.' Enough covenantal obedience was necessary to keep the typology legible, serving its purpose of directing attention to the true and lasting kingdom of God that it prefigured. This does not mean that the world only needed a redeemer who could roughly approximate the requirement of perfect obedience. After all, the covenant of works made with Adam and his posterity still requires fulfillment if anyone is to be saved. There must be a second Adam, not just a second Israel. There are both continuities and discontinuities between the covenant of works made with Adam and the republication of the works-covenant at Sinai, differences that are determined largely by changing historical contexts viz., the fall and God's determination to have a typological system whose every detail was designed to prefigure his Son's arrival in world history)."



So it's a form of typology, a teaching aid to Israel- as a childhood church that needed such teaching aids - to encourage faith and repentance and drive them to Christ as He was revealed to them in the revelation they had and it also, I would say, teaches us in the New Covenant church something about our situatuation - but it's not a RoCoW, as Mr Horton effectively says. The CoW and so-called RoCoW are in fact as like each other as chalk and cheese.

The Covenant of Works was really given again to Christ when He was born under it. But it was not given to Israel. Christ in fact undertook to fulfill the CoW before His incarnation.

I would say, for now, although this area of study seems complex, that all the revelation that Israel received at Sinai was of God's grace to lead them to salvation including all the typological teaching aids for a church under age, as the WCF calls it, i.e. a childhood church. 

That includes all the threats of excommunication ("cutting-off") including the penal law, which as well as teaching Israel to avoid sin and flee to the Gospel, functioned as Israel's criminal penological system, threatening death for 9 of the 10C; all other threats and curses from God; and also the threat of being typologically cast out of God's favour nationally by being exiled from the Land.

You might say that that's not grace and being gracious. But every parent knows that you sometimes have to be cruel to be kind. 

God knew He would sometimes have to be cruel to be kind in order to save His truly elect ones by grace through faith  from among the Covenant People of Israel. The same thing happens today if God is to save His truly elect ones from among the Covenant Christian Nation. 

There are changes of course because after Christ's First Advent, the pouring out of the Spirit and the completion of the canon, the church is no longer in a childhood state, and typological picture book educational aids and typological disciplinary educational aids are taken away.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2009)

WAWICRUZ said:


> I am wary of the synergistic overtones of claiming conditionality in the Covenant of Grace. When Scripture admonishes repentance and belief, it does so in the context of the Spirit's unmerited working in those elected to salvation. Therefore, to assert conditionality in the sense that to be a partaker of the benefits of the covenant one has to fulfill certain conditions is an affront to unconditional election and is unwarranted.
> 
> If ever conditionality figures in the Covenant of Grace, it would be that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements, stipulations, and demands of the Covenant of Works, with the merits thereof unconditionally imputed to the elect, not in the consideration of the believer's "response".



There is no problem in there being conditions to the Divine Covenants God makes with Man. 

The condition of salvation throughout the Covenant of Grace is saving faith. But in the case of those who are unconditionally elected this is produced by unconditional and irresistible grace. So no-one can boast that they saved themselves because they exercised faith. Such faith would never have been exercised but for God's special grace.

There are also other conditions to, e.g. the New Covenant, which do not mean that you lose your salvation, but you may lose other things. E.g. if you commit or go to certain lengths in sin you may be chastised for that sin, or you may be disciplined by the church. See e.g. I Corinthians 11. 

If these are not covenantal conditions, what are they? 

They will have different import for the saved (those who have Covenant life; who are both in _and of_ the Covenant; in _the bond_ of the Covenant _and _have _the life _of the Covenant) and the unsaved (those only legally and outwardly in the bond of the Covenant but have no saving life) in the Covenant.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2009)

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband."

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Galatians 4:21-31


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2009)

Irish Presbyterian said:


> 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
> 
> "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
> break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
> ...



You have to remember that the perverted and legalistic Judaism that the Apostle Paul was dealing with had turned the way of personal salvation under Moses into a scheme of works righteousness rather than grace alone through faith alone, had added thousands of laws in the Mishnah/Talmud (Oral Law) to Moses' "614" laws, and those of this mindset with some interest in Christianity wanted to suck and bind Christians back into this evil and perverted system.

You also have to remember re RoCoW that if individual justification under Moses was by faith alone through grace alone, and if individual sanctification was ultimately to be traced to faith alone through grace alone, the collective sanctification of the nation was by the same means. 

If the salvation of the nation collectively had been - of course it didn't happen - by the collective merit of lots of individual Israelites, they would have had somewhat in which to boast, rather than giving the glory of their achievement to the God Who had worked such good works in them in the process of sanctification or are the Republicationists saying that if Israel had been good enough to remain in the Land they should have patted themselves on the back? 

If it wasn't done by grace they should have patted themselves on the back! If it was only partially done by grace they should only have ascribed _some_ of the glory to God!


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Nov 24, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
> ...



I didn't actually make any comment. However, even if we take your contextual background as a given I think that Paul's argument is much more nuanced than that. When he says that the covenant at Mount Sinai bears children for slavery in contrast to the covenant made with Abraham which is free and it's children were born through promise then he draws a clear distinction that is not simply a reaction to legalistic Judaism. 

Again, I posted the passage without comment just to see how folks viewed it. Thanks for being the first to comment.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2009)

> I didn't actually make any comment. However, even if we take your contextual background as a given I think that Paul's argument is much more nuanced than that. When he says that the covenant at Mount Sinai bears children for slavery in contrast to the covenant made with Abraham which is free and it's children were born through promise then he draws a clear distinction that is not simply a reaction to legalistic Judaism



Thanks for reminding us of this text; it is certainly added food for thought.
Sorry for jumping the gun on what your view of a RoCoW may or may not be.

It is somewhat true what you say, because even if the Mosaic Covenant was not legally perverted or added to by the Jews, and used properly, the Old Covenant Jews - including those who were elect or had true faith - were a church underage as the WCF says, i.e. they were a childhood church, and various provisional and typological laws were imposed on this childhood Church which blessed by the Spirit could keep her in line or even be blessed to the salvation of the elect, so our Apostle can say,



> So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, (Gal.3:24, ESV)



and



> I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave (or bondservant) though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles [fn] of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.(Galatians 4:1-7, ESV)



It still leaves moot whether the Old Covenant people were personally saved by grace alone (as RoCoW proponents seem to teach, correctly) but would be nationally saved from Exile by a hybrid of grace and works (as RoCoW proponents would seem to teach).

If the people in the Old Covenant were personally justified by faith through grace, and their faith through grace was accompanied by ongoing repentance, new obedience and sanctification, their personal salvation was like ours in the New Covenant. Ergo, any national faith and obedience would also be traced to grace.

As Adam says above or in another thread, I do not see how you can have a hybrid administration of grace and works: either one hybrid grace-works covenant (Moses), or two covenants (Abraham/grace and Moses/works), or two covenants (Abraham/grace and Moses/works) blended. Otherwise God was sending a mixed message and mixed gospel to the people. 

Besides that, there are numerous and fundamental contrasts  between the Edenic administration and the Sinaitic administration (the CoW and the so-called RoCoW), which a moment's reflection bring to light, which mean that the Mosaic Covenant or Sinaitic administration is in no way a RoCoW.


----------

