msortwell
Puritan Board Freshman
I am looking for some clarification.
As a recovering dispensationalist, I occasionally find myself discovering flaws in my way of thinking through some basic theological issues. The latest was when I read of the clear distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant. To be clear, I had already concluded academically that the Mosaic Covenant was an outworking of the Covenant of Grace, but had unknowingly held on to the notion that it was Jesus' perfect keeping of the Mosaic Law (including the spirit thereof) that qualified Him to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the elect.
However, as I came to better understand the BASICS of CT, I came to understand that it was the obedience to Covenant of Works, and not obedience to the Mosaic Law that qualified Him to be our Savior. However, this left me having to reconcile that Jesus MUST BE a participant in the Covenant of Works without being subject to the curse of Adam's transgression.
Perhaps this is Theology 101 and I am embarrassing myself by struggling to make sure I understand the most fundamental federal doctrines, but I want to make sure I understand what specifically the Reformed view understands about this issue.
Christ must have, in a sense, been IN Adam, to be subject to the Covenant of Works, and thereby be credited with obedience to it - upon obedience to it.
Christ must have, in a sense, NOT been IN Adam, to be unaffected by the curse of Adam's transgression, which enabled Christ to be without sin and able to obey God's commands perfectly.
Are these two "must have"s addressed simply by Jesus being both fully God and fully man. That is, unlike the rest of us, He, when he walked on this earth, was spiritually connected to Adam in precisely the same way that he was on the day that Adam was created. That is, He spiritually preceded Adam and, in NO sense was spiritually IN ADAM during Adam's transgression. But, when Jesus was born in the flesh, He became a participant in the Covenant of Works simply by virtue of having been born a fleshly descendent of Adam. He was a participant in the Covenant, joined in some sense to Adam, but not a participant in the transgression and resulting curse.
OR . . . and this is just now forming in my mind . . . Was Jesus a participant in the Covenant of Works because the covenant was made between the Godhead (of which he was a part) and the human (Adam) that humans were to walk in perfect obedience to the covenant? Still this leaves us with the challenge of trying to grasp how Christ was obedient to the Covenant of Works even though the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not accessible to those who walked in the flesh in the 1st century? This would seem to require us to extend the Covenant of Works beyond the simple command given to Adam.
As a recovering dispensationalist, I occasionally find myself discovering flaws in my way of thinking through some basic theological issues. The latest was when I read of the clear distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant. To be clear, I had already concluded academically that the Mosaic Covenant was an outworking of the Covenant of Grace, but had unknowingly held on to the notion that it was Jesus' perfect keeping of the Mosaic Law (including the spirit thereof) that qualified Him to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the elect.
However, as I came to better understand the BASICS of CT, I came to understand that it was the obedience to Covenant of Works, and not obedience to the Mosaic Law that qualified Him to be our Savior. However, this left me having to reconcile that Jesus MUST BE a participant in the Covenant of Works without being subject to the curse of Adam's transgression.
Perhaps this is Theology 101 and I am embarrassing myself by struggling to make sure I understand the most fundamental federal doctrines, but I want to make sure I understand what specifically the Reformed view understands about this issue.
Christ must have, in a sense, been IN Adam, to be subject to the Covenant of Works, and thereby be credited with obedience to it - upon obedience to it.
Christ must have, in a sense, NOT been IN Adam, to be unaffected by the curse of Adam's transgression, which enabled Christ to be without sin and able to obey God's commands perfectly.
Are these two "must have"s addressed simply by Jesus being both fully God and fully man. That is, unlike the rest of us, He, when he walked on this earth, was spiritually connected to Adam in precisely the same way that he was on the day that Adam was created. That is, He spiritually preceded Adam and, in NO sense was spiritually IN ADAM during Adam's transgression. But, when Jesus was born in the flesh, He became a participant in the Covenant of Works simply by virtue of having been born a fleshly descendent of Adam. He was a participant in the Covenant, joined in some sense to Adam, but not a participant in the transgression and resulting curse.
OR . . . and this is just now forming in my mind . . . Was Jesus a participant in the Covenant of Works because the covenant was made between the Godhead (of which he was a part) and the human (Adam) that humans were to walk in perfect obedience to the covenant? Still this leaves us with the challenge of trying to grasp how Christ was obedient to the Covenant of Works even though the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not accessible to those who walked in the flesh in the 1st century? This would seem to require us to extend the Covenant of Works beyond the simple command given to Adam.