# The Mosaic Covenant only a ministration of death?



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2017)

How do I prove that the Mosaic Covenant was more than merely a ministration of death? Many baptists believe this to be so. 

Yet, it was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ...that sounds pretty gracious. And it pointed to Christ, that sounds gracious. And it advanced salvation history, that sounds gracious. It revealed sin and guided us morally. 

These things all make it sounds like there is grace even in the law. 

Help me out.


----------



## BG (Jul 11, 2017)

The preaching of the law is a means of Grace.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2017)

_How _was the Mosaic Covenant a "ministry of death," 2Cor.3:7, is the question. Was it _absolutely _a ministry of death? That seems rather an extreme stance, given the presence of the altar and the meaning of sacrifice. Life for death, a covering/replacement of sin: this is the essence of the substitution. What is the relation of Mosaic Tabernacle-legislation to the ethical legislation of the same legal corpus?

So, one must study to understand Paul's didactic intent of 2Cor. chs.3 & 4. It is a rich and profound passage, one of his most insightful presentations touching the relations of OT and NT. A cursory treatment, a tearing of this descriptive expression for the letters-in-stone (which was in literal terms, only the 10 commandments, Dt.10:4; cf.5:22 & 4:13) out of the context in which it is stated, in order to render it a "verdict." How improper.

If you prove that the terminology has a particular meaning (and is not an absolute and generally applicable title for the Old Covenant), you then have room to positively define that covenant in much fuller and richer terms.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2017)

What is behind the baptist tendency to only view the law in its 2nd use and ignore the 3rd use, or to only view Moses as a ministration of death rather than a gracious step forward in the plan of redemption and the giving of many types of Christ? What is at stake for baptists?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 11, 2017)

Pergamum,

I've been working for a while on curriculum for Covenant Theology and have dealt more in-depth with this issue. If you shoot me your email I could send you what I have.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 11, 2017)

In very very short: The Puritans OFTEN recoursed to understanding "the Law" in especially two very distinct ways. Those Puritans who spoke this way believed and affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant was indeed part of the Covenant of Grace. How did they deal with Scriptures like 2 Corinthians 3:5-7? They understood the Law in two ways: 1) The Law as it INCLUDED the promises of Christ and the gospel, through its types, pictures, sacrifices, etc etc; and 2) The Law as ABSTRACTED from the promises of Christ and the gospel. The first they called the Law LARGELY taken (including the promises); the second they called the Law STRICTLY taken. If you take the Law STRICTLY, removed and abstracted from the entire administration of Moses as a whole, it's a ministry of death that kills. But if you take it LARGELY, as including the promises as revealed in the Law, there's no problem for how you see the Law, as a whole, largely taken, as being part of the Covenant of Grace. Francis Roberts draws this distinction out beautifully from Romans 3:21, "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets." He understands the first as strictly, the second as largely: "But now apart from the Law [as STRICTLY taken], the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law [as LARGELY taken] and the prophets. So in short, if you "abstract" the Law in it's most "strict" sense, removing it from all the promises of the gospel, which are also revealed in the Law, then yes, the Law is nothing but a ministry of death that kills. But the Law was never meant to be taken in the strict sense as removed from its larger sense. The Law in its strict sense ("Do this and live") was always meant to point us to Christ as revealed in the Law in its larger sense.

And as you mentioned, there are many things in the Law (largely taken) that point us to Christ and the gospel, which is why we take it as part of the Covenant of Grace. A few here: 1) the ESSENCE is the same: at it's heart, the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the Covenant of Grace (Deut.7:12 and 29:10-13 make clear that the substance of the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the Abrahamic Covenant): ; 2) The PRIVILEGES are the same ("I will be your God"; being "a holy people, a chosen race, etc (Exodus 9:5-6 with 1Pet.2:9-10); 3) The CONTEXT is the same (Moses gave the Law after God had already redeemed Israel; Law comes after salvation as in the Covenant of Grace; 4) The STANDARD is the same (loving the Lord with all our hearts); 5) The PROVISION is the same (God provided blood sacrifices under the Law for the sins of His redeemed people, as He does in the Covenant of Grace); 6) The CONTENT is the same (Almost everything in the Law, from Moses himself to the tabernacle to the manna to the rock to the priesthood to the Passover points to Christ; hence Hebrews 4:2-6 tells us we have the same gospel preached to us that they had preached to them; 7) The MEANS of entering into the covenant was the same (the Mosaic Covenant actually commanded faith, which is what we see in Romans 10:5-9, where in describing the righteousness that is BY FAITH, Paul actually cites a passage from THE LAW (Deut.30). This is why/how the Mosaic Covenant was part of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> How do I prove that the Mosaic Covenant was more than merely a ministration of death? Many baptists believe this to be so.
> 
> Yet, it was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ...that sounds pretty gracious. And it pointed to Christ, that sounds gracious. And it advanced salvation history, that sounds gracious. It revealed sin and guided us morally.
> 
> ...


I am a Baptist, and even I would see that the grace of God was evident in the Old Covenant, as God gave Law to legislate morality and give guidelines for people and society to live by, but was not ever as a means to get saved.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 12, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> What is behind the baptist tendency to only view the law in its 2nd use and ignore the 3rd use, or to only view Moses as a ministration of death rather than a gracious step forward in the plan of redemption and the giving of many types of Christ? What is at stake for baptists?



Which Baptists? Are you referring to New Covenant Theologians? I'm not familiar with any 1689ers who ignore the 3rd use. In my experience they are much more consistent than Presbyterians are with this, unless they've gotten into Sonship or something. (Too many in the PCA, it seems to me, are either going "progressive" and/or have overreacted to "fundamentalist" legalism so much that they avoid scriptural imperatives.) 

A denial of the 3rd use is not to be equated with "1689 Federalism." They believe in the perpetuity of the moral law, at least from what I've seen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 12, 2017)

If they call the Mosaic Administration only a ministration of death it is hard to see how they could appreciate the gracious provision of the law as moral guide.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Which Baptists? Are you referring to New Covenant Theologians? I'm not familiar with any 1689ers who ignore the 3rd use. In my experience they are much more consistent than Presbyterians are with this, unless they've gotten into Sonship or something. (Too many in the PCA, it seems to me, are either going "progressive" and/or have overreacted to "fundamentalist" legalism so much that they avoid scriptural imperatives.)
> 
> A denial of the 3rd use is not to be equated with "1689 Federalism." They believe in the perpetuity of the moral law, at least from what I've seen.


The NCT would indeed see both the Moral aspects of the Law and the Sabbath itself as no longer binding on us under the New Covenant, but none who would hold to the 1689 Confession would say those things like they do.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> If they call the Mosaic Administration only a ministration of death it is hard to see how they could appreciate the gracious provision of the law as moral guide.


We would see the Moral law as applying towards us today, but we do not see the Mosaic era as the means of God granting to His people spiritual life, as much of that was based upon how well they obeyed and kept the commands of God.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 13, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We would see the Moral law as applying towards us today, but we do not see the Mosaic era as the means of God granting to His people spiritual life, as much of that was based upon how well they obeyed and kept the commands of God.



Nobody says that. Who is saying that? It seems some baptists are giving a caricature of covenant theoogy in order to build a case that they need their own unique baptistic form of covenant theology.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Nobody says that. Who is saying that? It seems some baptists are giving a caricature of covenant theoogy in order to build a case that they need their own unique baptistic form of covenant theology.


I am not trying to put anyone down, as I was just saying this is how many Baptists would tend to see things, and even those of us who are reformed baptists do see the Covenants in a somewhat different fashion, such as water Baptism and when the church was founded by God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

I have wrestled with this stuff a bit. Here is a portion of what I saw.


> A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.
> 
> In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.
> 
> ...



An old friend of the PB use to challenge me concerning my Reformed Baptist Interpretation concerning Jeremiah 31. He also told me to include Chapters 30 and 32. It is hard to come away from those passages saying our Children are excluded as infants from the New Covenant unless they profess something. Especially in chapter 32. People need to read the whole context of this passage concerning the Mosaic Covenant as well as they need to in Galatians and Hebrews also. It is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I have wrestled with this stuff a bit. Here is a portion of what I saw.
> 
> ...


Much of this seems to me to hang on just how much, or how little, we see the continuity between the 2 Covenants.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Much of this seems to me to hang on just how much, or how little, we see the continuity between the 2 Covenants.


Or on how much the scriptures say they do. I believe it is on how much the scriptures say they do. So it doesn't depend upon how much you see but how much the scriptures say. And they say a lot.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Thanks Randy, I'll read chapters 30, 31, and 32 of Jeremiah again tonight with that in mind. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I have wrestled with this stuff a bit. Here is a portion of what I saw.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I have wrestled with this stuff a bit. Here is a portion of what I saw.
> 
> ...


The bit you quoted is a beautiful exposition, thank you. I read that as a Baptist without feeling any baptist-hood threatened in the least; I assent to it all wholeheartedly.
To your own words I would reply: we do not say that Children are excluded unless they profess something. We say they are born sinners, and remain strangers (excluded, if you will) to the new covenant until God sees fit to regenerate them. When they have been given repentance and faith, a good profession will follow.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> How do I prove that the Mosaic Covenant was more than merely a ministration of death? Many baptists believe this to be so.
> 
> Yet, it was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ...that sounds pretty gracious. And it pointed to Christ, that sounds gracious. And it advanced salvation history, that sounds gracious. It revealed sin and guided us morally.
> 
> ...



I believe that Ernest Kevan was another Baptist who believed that the Mosaic Covenant was a gracious covenant. He wrote a book entitled "The Grace of Law."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2017)

It is not foreign for some Reformed Baptists to hold that the Mosaic Covenant was fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace. They are far and few but I do know that I was not one of them. I saw the Mosaic Covenant more like John Owen did. It was neither an administration of the Covenant of Works nor of the Covenant of Grace. It administered the doctrines of both but the Covenant of Works was past and done. The Mosaic pointed that out. Men were all born dead in Adam. The New Covenant was to be fulfilled in the future. The Mosaic was a stand alone Covenant that pointed to both the Covenant of Works and the New Covenant fulfilment.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is not foreign for some Reformed Baptists to hold that the Mosaic Covenant was fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace. They are far and few but I do know that I was not one of them. I saw the Mosaic Covenant more like John Owen did. It was neither an administration of the Covenant of Works nor of the Covenant of Grace. It administered the doctrines of both but the Covenant of Works was past and done. The Mosaic pointed that out. Men were all born dead in Adam. The New Covenant was to be fulfilled in the future. The Mosaic was a stand alone Covenant that pointed to both the Covenant of Works and the New Covenant fulfilment.


I've never heard this view, but I also don't listen well to others....my understanding is that the Mosaic Covenant is another step in the CoG, a step toward it's fulfilment in the new covenant. How is it not gracious that God would enter into covenant with his people? or that He would condescend to write down His law-twice-on tables of stone? Or that He would forgive sins? Or that He would be inquired of and dwell among His people? His gracious love for Israel is expressed time after time, forgiveness of sins is offered, His presence vouchsafed. The Old Covenant is full of grace, grace that pointed to Jesus Christ, our Covenant Law-keeper, perfect High Priest, and perpetual Mediator. The Decalogue is still God's law for His people--not to be saved by it's keeping, just like OT Israel could not be--but to live by having been made alive unto Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> I believe that Ernest Kevan was another Baptist who believed that the Mosaic Covenant was a gracious covenant. He wrote a book entitled "The Grace of Law."


I was actually going to create a new thread to discuss that book since I read it and liked it. But I thought I had posted enough for one week and so did not. Do you have any thoughts on it?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I was actually going to create a new thread to discuss that book since I read it and liked it. But I thought I had posted enough for one week and so did not. Do you have any thoughts on it?



My thoughts on it are that I bought it and Samuel Bolton's "The True Bounds of Christian Freedom" about 5-6 years ago and have yet to begin reading either one, sadly. I think I bought them back when the "Grace Boys" (Tullian Tchvidjian, etc.) were running wild. I was listening to Laurence Justice, Daniel Chamberlin and some other Sovereign Grace Baptist preachers who are somewhat Landmarkish (but also at least somewhat confessional) on Sermon Audio back then. brother. Justice recommended those books in one sermon, I think maybe as a counter to NCT.

On Kevan, you may find this to be of interest: http://confessingbaptist.com/kevan-and-the-kaleidoscope-of-covenant-theology/

Kevan's book has been discussed on the board before. I think it is probably apropos in this debate, although I don't know to what degree he goes into it in the book. I do remember that Rev. Winzer and maybe some others said that it has some flaws and maybe doesn't show the whole picture with regard to the Puritans and the law. But however that may be, I don't know that that matters so much with this in-house RB debate about the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm sure you can search the board and find that thread. 

EDIT: I couldn't find that thread but I found this one. https://puritanboard.com/threads/mosaic-covenant-works.11570/#post-152958

and this one https://puritanboard.com/threads/ho...ngs-of-the-covenant-of-grace-are-there.78854/


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> My thoughts on it are that I bought it and Samuel Bolton's "The True Bounds of Christian Freedom" about 5-6 years ago and have yet to begin reading either one, sadly. I think I bought them back when the "Grace Boys" (Tullian Tchvidjian, etc.) were running wild. I was listening to Laurence Justice, Daniel Chamberlin and some other Sovereign Grace Baptist preachers who are somewhat Landmarkish (but also at least somewhat confessional) on Sermon Audio back then. brother. Justice recommended those books in one sermon, I think maybe as a counter to NCT.
> 
> On Kevan, you may find this to be of interest: http://confessingbaptist.com/kevan-and-the-kaleidoscope-of-covenant-theology/
> 
> ...


Thanks, very helpful.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Or on how much the scriptures say they do. I believe it is on how much the scriptures say they do. So it doesn't depend upon how much you see but how much the scriptures say. And they say a lot.


I am assuming that we have been reading and studying the scriptures here, and there are still profound differences on this issue between how a Baptist and a Presbyterian would see it as being.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> The bit you quoted is a beautiful exposition, thank you. I read that as a Baptist without feeling any baptist-hood threatened in the least; I assent to it all wholeheartedly.
> To your own words I would reply: we do not say that Children are excluded unless they profess something. We say they are born sinners, and remain strangers (excluded, if you will) to the new covenant until God sees fit to regenerate them. When they have been given repentance and faith, a good profession will follow.


The good profession of now receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will then bring forth the water baptism, for they would now be seen as really being a part of the local church and the body of Christ in a biblical sense and way.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is not foreign for some Reformed Baptists to hold that the Mosaic Covenant was fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace. They are far and few but I do know that I was not one of them. I saw the Mosaic Covenant more like John Owen did. It was neither an administration of the Covenant of Works nor of the Covenant of Grace. It administered the doctrines of both but the Covenant of Works was past and done. The Mosaic pointed that out. Men were all born dead in Adam. The New Covenant was to be fulfilled in the future. The Mosaic was a stand alone Covenant that pointed to both the Covenant of Works and the New Covenant fulfilment.


It was a temporary administration of the CoG unto the nation of Israel of that time.


----------



## BG (Jul 18, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The good profession of now receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will then bring forth the water baptism, for they would now be seen as really being a part of the local church and the body of Christ in a biblical sense and way.




I don't want to be too hard on you, but this is all make-believe you must pretend that you know that the person has really sincerely made a profession of faith you must pretend to know that God has truly regenerated the person you have no idea whether this person is really and truly saved or not unless you have some special gnostic glasses that allow you to do so.

It is a false Baptist presupposition that the only true members of the new covenant Are regenerate.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

BG said:


> I don't want to be too hard on you, but this is all make-believe you must pretend that you know that the person has really sincerely made a profession of faith you must pretend to know that God has truly regenerated the person you have no idea whether this person is really and truly saved or not unless you have some special gnostic glasses that allow you to do so.
> 
> It is a false Baptist presupposition that the only true members of the new covenant Are regenerate.


Those who have made a profession of faith in Jesus would be the ones who indeed would be seen as being in the New Covenant relationship with God now, as the local church would have them explain to Pastor/Elder just what to them it means To be a real Christian.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Yes. I admit that many baptists seem unwilling to admit that many of the baptized who profess faith are ultimately lost. Though they be under the external administration of the covenant, they were never truly part of the Covenant (not IN Christ). 

I would propose that a conscious profession of faith, however, as we see in the explicit examples of NT baptism, is a better safeguard against administering the covenant signs to unbelievers than mere lineage.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Though they be under the external administration of the covenant, they were never truly part of the Covenant (not IN Christ).



Does John 15:2 teach that there are those in covenant (in Christ, in a non-saving sense!) who will be removed?: "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." This seems to accord with passages like Hebrews 6:4, for instance.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 19, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Does John 15:2 teach that there are those in covenant (in Christ, in a non-saving sense!) who will be removed?: "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." This seems to accord with passages like Hebrews 6:4, for instance.



Good question. What do you think?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 19, 2017)

I think it does teach that and like other doctrines, it seems to flow from good and necessary consequence. In a true sense, there are partakers of the covenant who will be cut off.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Good question. What do you think?


The Lord is taking away the Christian in the sense of doing His work to "clean them up", and to have them become better fruit bearers. Part of that process might involve taking out to his wood shed for some personal chastising.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord is taking away the Christian in the sense of doing His work to "clean them up", and to have them become better fruit bearers. Part of that process might involve taking out to his wood shed for some personal chastising.



I believe David, that in John 15 the ones who don't bear fruit in v. 2 are the same ones who don't abide (remain) in Christ- they are withered, and men gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned (v. 6).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I believe David, that in John 15 the ones who don't bear fruit in v. 2 are the same ones who don't abide (remain) in Christ- they are withered, and men gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned (v. 6).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You would be correct, as they would be cast off due to not really being tied into Jesus and never really saved.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 19, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think it does teach that and like other doctrines, it seems to flow from good and necessary consequence. In a true sense, there are partakers of the covenant who will be cut off.


Partakers of the external administration or partakers of the substance? None can be true covenant-breakers of the substance for the NC cannot be broken. But many are cut off from the external administration of the covenant.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 19, 2017)

Of the external administration; I was speaking to your saying that those who are baptized but are really lost were never truly part of the covenant, or in Christ. Yet the Scriptures say that they have been in Christ, have been enlightened, have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that baptism truly initiates one into a community with which God has made a covenant; Christ being the Head, a person baptized is truly, in that sense, baptized into Christ. But if he doesn't remain in Christ, he withers away and is gathered to be burned. 

It's really not pertinent to the OP- I just noted that expression you used and immediately thought of the passages in John 15 and Hebrews 6, and others.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 20, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Of the external administration; I was speaking to your saying that those who are baptized but are really lost were never truly part of the covenant, or in Christ. Yet the Scriptures say that they have been in Christ, have been enlightened, have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that baptism truly initiates one into a community with which God has made a covenant; Christ being the Head, a person baptized is truly, in that sense, baptized into Christ. But if he doesn't remain in Christ, he withers away and is gathered to be burned.
> 
> It's really not pertinent to the OP- I just noted that expression you used and immediately thought of the passages in John 15 and Hebrews 6, and others.


The persons mentioned in Hebrews 6 were those who were part of the church, professed even to being a christian, but in the end, were never really saved, as shown by Judas being with/among the Apostles of Christ, and yet never was really part of His ministry and mot saved.
The only NC would be between God and those who received Jesus in a saving fashion.


----------

