The Nature of the Mosaic Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Puritan Board Sophomore
What would you all make of this statement? Would you substantially agree or disagree?

"The essential demand of the Mosaic Covenant was for a nation of regenerate, repentant believers. The requirements of the law were impossible to keep perfectly, but were meant to drive the people to faith in God's gracious promises, signified by the sacrificial system. If the people as a whole lived by faith in this way, the demands of the Mosaic Covenant would have been satisfied for the continued enjoyment of the temporal rewards promised in that covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant differs clearly from the Covenant of Grace properly conceived, however, in two ways. The first difference is that in itself it promised only temporal rewards (though it typified and pointed to eternal rewards for believers already promised to Abraham). The second difference is that, unlike in the CoG, God did not take it upon himself to guarantee the fulfillment of the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant. Thus the possibility that Israel would break the covenant and bring the curses upon herself was always real, and ultimately came about."

EDIT for clarity: I wrote this statement as a draft for critique.
 
Last edited:
Andrew, it would be better if we knew who the author was, and what the context of this statement is. Commenting on a context-less, author-less statement usually results in distortion and misunderstanding.
 
Andrew, it would be better if we knew who the author was, and what the context of this statement is. Commenting on a context-less, author-less statement usually results in distortion and misunderstanding.
Sorry, I realize the quotation marks might be misleading-- I just meant to delineate the actual statement. This is a statement I constructed as I've been working through my understanding of the Mosaic Covenant in light of my other covenant theological shifts. I'm not 100% sure about it yet-- it's a draft that I want people to critique.
 
Ok, thanks, Andrew.

"The essential demand of the Mosaic Covenant was for a nation of regenerate, repentant believers. The requirements of the law were impossible to keep perfectly, but were meant to drive the people to faith in God's gracious promises, signified by the sacrificial system.
Just trying to clarify here, not any kind of "gotcha" moment. As you are probably aware, the Mosaic covenant is one of the most difficult, thorniest issues in biblical theology. Period. This requires the utmost in clarity of definition and clarity in statement. Are you saying here that the requirement from God was equivalent to a driving of the people to His gracious promises? Does this mean that law and the pedagogical use of the law are equivalent? Second question: what are God's gracious promises such that they are signified by the sacrificial system?

If the people as a whole lived by faith in this way, the demands of the Mosaic Covenant would have been satisfied for the continued enjoyment of the temporal rewards promised in that covenant.
Since you say below that the Mosaic covenant only promises temporal rewards, then how do you envision the Mosaic covenant's relationship to the Abrahamic? Is there any overlap or extension of the Abrahamic going on in the Mosaic? Do temporal rewards terminate in themselves, or do they point beyond themselves to eternal, salvific things?
The Mosaic Covenant differs clearly from the Covenant of Grace properly conceived, however, in two ways. The first difference is that in itself it promised only temporal rewards (though it typified and pointed to eternal rewards for believers already promised to Abraham). The second difference is that, unlike in the CoG, God did not take it upon himself to guarantee the fulfillment of the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant.
How does this statement relate to Paul's statements that Jesus was born under the law to fulfil all its requirements?
Thus the possibility that Israel would break the covenant and bring the curses upon herself was always real, and ultimately came about."
To what extent is this true? Is the Exile a full and complete curse? Did God completely divorce His people, or did He separate from them for a time?

I'm sorry that my entire interaction is questions. But given the difficulties of the issue, your statement, to my mind at least, needs a fair bit of explanation and unfolding before your view becomes clear.
 
I'm sorry that my entire interaction is questions. But given the difficulties of the issue, your statement, to my mind at least, needs a fair bit of explanation and unfolding before your view becomes clear.
Thanks Lane, I actually greatly appreciate the questions. This is the kind of thoughtful interaction I need to help refine my thinking.

To your first question, by the "requirements of the law" I meant all of the requirements of obedience laid out in the Mosaic law, which I understand to be a material republication of the CoW. I believe in the traditional three uses of the law, but what I am saying here is that in terms of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant it was never actually possible for Israel to meet those requirements-- instead the "right" response to the law on Israel's part was to recognise their inability to perfectly fulfill it, and respond with repentance and faith (and of course a proper use of the law to guide their living as believers). I'd say the sacrificial system typifies Christ's sacrifice, of course, and the promise they pointed to was righteousness by faith as revealed to Abraham earlier.

To your second point, I'd say the Mosaic Covenant is a temporal, typological extension of the Abrahamic Covenant. I think they are organically related, but I think the Mosaic Covenant brings in a conditional, national element which typifies and points to greater spiritual realities (the spiritual realities of the New Covenant). Thus as far as eternal salvation goes, there is one way of salvation which continues--by grace through faith--but the MC is a subservient, typological covenant which makes temporal promises to the nation which are rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, but are not the final fulfillment of it.

Your question about Jesus being born under the Law is an important one-- I think my answer to that lies in the fact that I see the Mosaic law as a material republication of the CoW. The covenant itself only promises temporal rewards, but it reveals the law of God which Christ fulfilled on our behalf.

I would say that God did "divorce" national Israel ultimately as the shadow gave way to the substance. However, he did not ultimately go back on any promises, nor did he ultimately abandon the "true Israel" because the greater fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant did come about for Abraham's spiritual seed. Of course this is tied to my now Baptist understanding of the two seeds of Abraham as well.
 
Last edited:
Is this what they're teaching now at RTS? That the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient one? Just curious.

Speaking of Francis Roberts recently, I wish our seminaries would have their students read Roberts on the Mosaic Covenant.

If you have time, check this out. It will blow your mind (at least it should):


Your first paragraph is spot on. From there you digress, as I see it.

Sorry these are so long, but this might help as well: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/be37d2_b6202bc560e84d53b8374deab29d3d5f.pdf

Blessings in your study on this.
 
To clarify, this is not the view taught at RTS. They teach the traditional majority Reformed view.
Okay, gotcha, thanks.

Here is one more resource. I studied through this for a good few years as I wrote some curriculum on the covenants. The Puritans wrestled deeply with these issues. So did I. My biggest qualm with the traditional view of the Mosaic Covenant was this: How can the Mosaic Covenant be part of the Covenant of Grace if what it requires is indeed perfect obedience, and requires that as the condition for life (when the Covenant of Grace requires faith alone apart from works)? What I found blew me away as I read through the writings of John Ball, Francis Roberts, Anthony Burgess, Thomas Blake, Francis Turretin, John Flavel and others--all these men deeply wrestled through these questions and they all came to the same conclusion. It was a conclusion I had never remembered hearing before, but one that lines up with the Traditional/Classical View, and one that satisfied all my questions completely. I summarized their conclusions here: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/be37d2_527984d255de482e9f21b1fee8e43e64.pdf

Francis Roberts summarizes this view in this way in his Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible: “I add therefore, for the unfolding of this mystery more clearly. . .these few considerations touching the Law or Sinai Covenant, and the condition of life and happiness therein revealed, [namely]:

1) “That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender life and happiness upon two opposite and contrary conditions; viz, works and faith; perfect doing, and believing: a) Upon perfect doing all in the Law: Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12 with Leviticus 18:5; the curse being denounced against the least failing, Galatians 3:10 with Deuteronomy 27:26. b) Upon believing in Jesus Christ the Messiah promised, Romans 3:21,22 and 10:6-12; compared with Deuteronomy 30:11-14. . .To deny this, which is so clear, will but tend to weaken Paul's authority, [and] to darken many Scriptures. . .

2) “That, in this Sinai Covenant these opposite conditions, of perfect doing under pain of curse and death, and of believing in Christ, are very differently required and revealed: a) Believing in Christ is revealed very sparingly and obscurely; b) perfect doing very frequently and plainly. . .Whence (as Calvin notes) though the whole ministration of the Sinai Covenant belongs to Moses' office; yet that function most properly. . .seems to be ascribed to him, which consisted in teaching what the true righteousness of works was, and what rewards or punishments attend upon the observers or breakers of the Law. . .

3) “That, though these two conditions of perfect doing, and believing, be thus differently revealed and required in the Sinai Covenant; yet believing in Christ unto life and righteousness was therein chiefly and ultimately intended, and perfect doing only urged upon Israel's subordination. . .and tendency to believing and the righteousness of faith, [for]. . .The Scripture, peculiarly the Law, hath hereby concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to them that believe. . .

4) “That, the condition of perfect doing under pain of curse and death, convincing the sinner of his sin and misery, leaves him hopeless in himself, not to trust in his own works. . .but the condition of believing gives him hope, without himself, in Jesus Christ, to trust to him alone for justification.

5) “That the Sinai Covenant tendered life and happiness upon these two opposite conditions of perfect doing under penalty of curse and death; and of believing in Christ; because both these conditions were necessarily required to the sinners' [eternal] happiness: [whether] in the sinner, or the sinners' Surety: a) Perfect doing of all God's Law upon pain of death was required to the sinners' happiness: because God's Covenant of Works, at first made with Adam and with all his posterity in him, but broken by them, cannot be eluded or evaded. They must do it, or die; otherwise God himself should not be just and true. Do it, in their own persons, they could not, because the flesh was weak; therefore they lie under the curse and death. This covenant hereupon. . .reveals the sinners' Surety Jesus Christ, who alone could satisfactorily bear this curse upon himself, and perform the duty of the Law to the uttermost, for the sinners' redemption and righteousness. b) Believing in Christ is also necessary to the sinners' happiness: because without faith his Surety's perfect doing and enduring cannot become his by imputation. . .

6) “That, perfect doing on pain of death, and believing in Jesus Christ are so required and conditioned in this Sinai Covenant, as to let all men see, that the penalty and duty of the Covenant of Works, have their plenary accomplishment in the Covenant of Faith [Grace] through Jesus Christ alone. . .Herein they are directed unto Jesus Christ by faith, for life and righteousness. Thus according to the tenor of the Sinai Covenant, the Covenant of Works has its perfect accomplishment in Christ—by doing and enduring, all which becomes ours—by believing. Thus the Covenant of Works is digested into, incorporated with, and wholly swallowed up by the Covenant of Faith. Thus perfect doing is attained by believing. . .

7) “That, the condition of perfect doing being thus attained by believing, with greatest ease unties the knots of many difficulties, and unveils the secret of many mysteries [and especially]. . .How sinners are at once justified by perfect doing, and by believing. By perfect doing, in Christ's person, to whom the Law drives them, by exacting impossibilities of them. By believing, in their own persons; whereunto the law allures them, by representing Christ as the scope and end of the Law to them. Thus it's no paradox for sinners to be justified, in the sight of God, both by works, and faith; by Christ's works, by their own faith . . .In themselves, through the weakness of the flesh, they can do nothing, as the Law requires. . .and yet in Christ, the perfect Performer of the Law, embraced by faith, they can do all things perfectly; Christ's perfect obedience being imputed to them by faith. This Sinai Covenant therefore, requires perfect doing from the sinner under pain of curse, that it may drive him from himself who can do nothing; and requires believing in Christ, that it may draw the sinner unto Christ, who has done all things that so the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in him. . .Hereby God will have us know, that neither God nor man shall lose by substituting the Covenant of Faith instead of the Covenant of Works, but rather both shall gain; God shall gain a better observance of His Law in the second Adam, than He had in the first; and man shall gain a better righteousness in Christ by faith, than ever they had in themselves before the fall. Thus the gospel does not overthrow, but establish the Law, by setting forth Christ the most perfect Performer of the Law.”

Turretin puts it this way: “Again, these two conditions are proposed because they are necessary to the salvation of the sinner: perfect obedience in Christ to fulfill the righteousness of the law. . .without which the justice of God did not permit life to be given to us; faith however in us that the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ might be applied to us and become ours by imputation. Thus what was demanded of us in the Covenant of Works is fulfilled by Christ in the Covenant of Grace. Nor is it absurd that in this way justification takes place by works and by faith—by the works of Christ and by our faith. And thus in sweet harmony the law and the gospel meet together in this covenant. The law is not administered without the gospel, nor the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith. So the gospel does not destroy the law, but establishes it (Romans 3:31) by giving us Christ, who perfectly fulfilled it. And the law is not against the gospel, since it refers and leads us to it as its end.”

Hope this may be helpful for you, it sure was for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top