Understanding Specific Passages in Deuteronomy

Fellas,

A little background, then to the question. I take the Mosaic Covenant as in substance belonging to the Covenant of Grace. I also take it as including an *administrative* repetition (NOT republication or renewal) of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. I can explain that more if helpful but don't want to clog up my question with explanation.

My question has to do with how to apply these things IN PARTICULAR to particular passages in Deuteronomy. Passages such as 4:1; 5:33; 6:25; 7:12; 8:1; 11:26-28; 28:1-2,13-15, etc. These passages seem to require OBEDIENCE as the condition of both (eternal) life as well as individual blessing in the land.

Let me just give one example:

Deuteronomy 28:1-2: "Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the Lord your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the Lord God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. All these blessings will come upon you, and overtake you if you obey the Lord your God."

It seems there are at least two differing ways to interpret this. The passage is requiring:

1) Perfect LEGAL obedience. IE, if you obey the Law perfectly, you will inherit eternal life as well as all temporal blessings in this life. "ALL" here = each and every command; perfect obedience. The requirement is impossible, but it drives us to Christ, in and through Whose perfect obedience, imputed to us, we in turn inherit all these things.

2) Sincere GOSPEL obedience. The Hebrew word for "obey" here is actually "listen." Can we tie this with Galatians 3:2,5, (the hearing/"listening" of faith) and Isaiah 55:3 ("Listen, that you may life"), and understand this as saying basically, if you TRULY LISTEN (IE, believe), and prove the genuineness and reality of that faith by keeping God's commands, you will inherit God's blessing. "ALL" here = a complete and universal (sincere, gospel) obedience.

Thoughts? Do we put some of these passages into category 1, some into category 2; some into both categories respectively? Are there other categories? Does anyone know of any helpful work that goes through these kinds of passages in Deuteronomy and really deals thoroughly with what they are saying/not saying? Thanks.

PS, does anyone actually hold the position that the blessings of salvation are only obtained through faith, but temporal blessings are won or lost on account of our obedience? By temporal blessings I mean, God will lead me today, God will fill me with His Spirit and use me today, God will show up and give me the sermon I need today, etc.

PPS, I know there is also a corporate element here, akin to Revelation 2-3, applying to entire churches corporately. My question has less to do with this corporate element and more to do with the individual. Thanks again.

Have you read Murray on this issue? He wrestled with your question and wound of taking a variation of option 2). As part of an early OPC committee to study the Scripture references of the standards, Murray added Lev 18:5 and Matt 19:17 as references to WCF 19.6, specifically the section that says "what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof." Those were not part of the original WCF, but they are now part of the official OPC version. As a result of this interpretation, Murray rejected the Covenant of Works (denied there was any works principle, or covenantal merit involved in the Adamic "administration"). https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...did-john-murray-reject-the-covenant-of-works/

Following this trajectory, in 2001 the OPC revised proof texts for the Larger Catechism. Notably Romans 2:6,7,13,16 were added as proof-texts for WLC90 (it was subsequently removed after it was used to exonerate John Kinnaird at the GA). https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/opc-report-on-republication-background/

Though I disagree with this view, D. Patrick Ramsey is very helpful in clearly articulating the position. In his essay "In Defense of Moses" he notes

Objection 4: In expounding the covenant of works made with Adam the Westminster Confession of Faith uses Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 as proof texts. Both of these texts quote Lev 18:5, which refers to the Mosaic Covenant. Therefore, the Divines understood the Mosaic Covenant to be a covenant of works.

The texts that the Westminster Standards used to expound the Covenant of Works are Gen 1:26-27; 2:17; Job 28:28; Eccl 7:29; Rom 2:14-15; 5:12-20; 10:5; Gal 3:10; 3:12 (WCF 7.2; 19.1). None of these texts are from the Mosaic Covenant; however, Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:10, 12 quote verses from the Mosaic Covenant.

The reasons for appealing to these New Testament quotations of Moses vary among the writings of the Puritans. [1] Some believed that they taught that the Covenant of Works was renewed at Mount Sinai though with evangelical purposes and intentions… [2] A similar position stated that these passages taught that the Mosaic Law contained a restatement of the principle of works. It was not re-established or renewed, only republished and repeated in order to drive men to Christ…

[3] A third Puritan position understood the proof texts used by the Westminster Confession of Faith to refer to the Law absolutely or separated from the Gospel. When the Mosaic Law is taken out of its context, then and only then does it become contrary to the Gospel by becoming the matter (describes the righteousness required in the Covenant of Works) and/or form (offers life by works) of the Covenant of Works. Hence, passages like Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5 did not, in their original intent, renew or repeat the Covenant of Works.

The Pharisees and Judaizers of Paul’s day distorted the Law by separating it from the Gospel and used it for their justification before God. Paul’s quotations of Moses in Romans and Galatians are thus referring to the Jews’ perversion of the Law. In so doing the apostle expounds the principle of works, which is applicable to the Covenant of Works made with Adam.

Of these three possible explanations for the use of Gal 3:10, 12 and Rom 10:5 as proof texts for the Covenant of Works, the third is the most likely. This is so because the Divines did not use Lev 18:5, Deut 27:26, or any passage pertaining to the Mosaic Covenant as proof texts. If they had understood the Mosaic Covenant to be a renewal or republication of the Covenant of Works, they probably would have appealed to the Law of Moses directly, as many Puritans did.

Click to expand...

In a post at Meet the Puritans titled More Than Fruit, he says

In my last article I referenced the evangelical understanding of the Scriptural phrase “do this and live” among some puritans. Such an understanding implies that good works are more than the fruit of salvation. We don’t engage in good works merely because we live or are saved, we are to do them in order to live or to salvation.

Click to expand...

So this view actually denies that these passages, in their original context are "an *administrative* repetition (NOT republication or renewal) of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works." They are conditions of the Covenant of Grace. They only become statements of the condition of the Covenant of Works when Judaizers misinterpret and misapply them apart from the Gospel. But that is the necessary consequence of adopting your option 2).

So I would recommend reading Murray and Ramsey elaborate on those texts to clearly understand one possible interpretation.

I personally do not agree with this view, but what I think they get correct is that these statements are conditions of the Mosaic Covenant. They are not simply quotations/references/reptitions to the original Covenant of Works. They are explaining what members of the Mosaic Covenant must do in order to obtain the reward of the Mosaic Covenant. In this respect, I believe they are much more correct than others like Calvin who try to say these are just repetitions of the Covenant of Works and are not part of the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. I do not think that position is exegetically possible.

There is a third option that you did not mention (perhaps because it does not align with your stated view of the Mosaic Covenant). That is the subservient covenant position. Men like Samuel Bolton and John Owen argued that these statements referred not to eternal life but to Israel's life and blessing in the land of Canaan. It is not an ongoing principle regarding all temporal blessing/reward in the believers' life today. It was unique to the Mosaic Covenant, which they believed was separate from the Covenant of Grace (though subservient to it). Perhaps you have already considered this view and have rejected it, but if not, I recommend reading Samuel Bolton and John Owen (Ramsey discusses them in his paper linked above). As this issue was wrestled with in the latter 17th century, it took the shape of Presbyterians vs Congregationalists (subservient view) https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/