Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF

Discussion in 'Covenant Theology' started by SRoper, Apr 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Graduate

    Today I asked someone if he had read Michael Horton's God of Promise. He said that he hadn't, but he heard that Horton is "not quite on board" with the WCF on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm wondering what the difference is between the WCF and Horton if any.
  2. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I read God of Promise when I first began to study Covenant Theology. I believe Horton views the Mosaic Covenant as a renewal of the Covenant of Works instead of a renewal of the Covenant of Grace with a clearer understanding of the law contained therein.
  3. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior


  4. dannyhyde

    dannyhyde Puritan Board Sophomore

    I've read it...what exactly is your question?
  5. S. Spence

    S. Spence Puritan Board Freshman

    I cannot recommend 'God of Promise' enough; it's a fantastic read.

    Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.

    Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.

    I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.
  6. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Thanks for clarifying it more than I was able.
  7. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    I agree with the particular view discussed, but I don't think that it can be said that it is necessarily the classic view of covenant theology, in as much as there are several views held regarding the Mosaic administration among older writers. Turretin and Witsius both have things to say regarding this. I believe that Witsius embraces it, Turretin recognizes it as a valid viewpoint among the Reformed w/o subscribing in all the details, Hodge mentions it in his commentary on 2 Corinthians.

    Like I said, I think it is correct, and only makes sense of the big picture, but I was actually labeled as teaching heresy by an ill-informed OPC pastor during a summer internship, who took me aside in his office to proclaim that if I ever taught it again he would bring me up on charges. He refused to apologize and acknowledge that this view was embraced by older Reformed theologians, even after I showed him the hard evidence. It sure seems to get some folks blood boiling, although I have never been quite sure why it does so. Just be prepared with your evidence.
  8. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    This is not "classic" covenant theology, but an inept modern justification of it.

    The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.

    The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

    Look before you cross the road!
  9. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

    Would you do me a favor and flesh this out a bit for me. Never seen this argument before. Or if you know of a place it is detailed further, point me in the direction.

  10. aleksanderpolo

    aleksanderpolo Puritan Board Freshman

    I am struggling with this issue too. Didn't Israel sin and broke the law at Mt Sinai and repeatedly afterwards, and in spite of that, God still brought them into the land? That to me sounds more like CoG than CoW, even with respect to the land promise. In contrast, in CoW, there is no grace in breaking the law...

    I love listening to WHI, and am under the impression that Horton loves to emphasize the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the conditional nature of Mosaic covenant. And I have a hard time squaring it with Genesis 17. To me it seems, in Genesis 17 God's land promise to Abraham is tie up to Abraham's responsibility to "walk before me, and be blameless" and to circumcise his children, just as the land promise in the Mosaic covenant is tie up to Israel keeping the law. So, I am not sure why on one hand we can say Mosaic covenant is a republication of CoW in a typological sense, on the other hand the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant both have typological fulfillment (i.e. land promise) and responsibility, but they are not regarded as a republication of CoW. (I am not advocating that they should be regarded as republication of CoW at all)

    I know this topic has been brought up repeatedly, and I really appreciate all previous responses. I am probably not informed enough to make up my mind at the moment... :think:
  11. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    I'm not sure what you would like fleshed out -- the idea of reduplication of the covenant of works, or the fact that it undermines continuity of the covenant of grace?
  12. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

    The whole inclusion of infants part and how that is undermined...
  13. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Let's take Horton's quotation of Robertson on p. 96. Robertson follows the traditional line: "Law under Moses never was intended to function apart from promise. Separated from its promise-dimension, which reached its fulfilment in Christ, law never could provide a way for making sinners righteous." On this line of thinking we see that Israel is constituted a nation under God by grace. The law was added because of transgression, and to bind Israel into the true religion until Christ comes.

    Now Horton responds. On p. 97 he approvingly quotes Kline: "the Sinaitic covenant as such ... 'made inheritance to be by law, not by promise -- not by faith, but by works.'" (The theology of Numbers alone refutes this, but let's keep to the matter at hand.) Horton argues the theocracy is a renewed law covenant, and so on and so forth.

    However, who is the party to this law-covenant? It is the nation, the theocracy. What is promised? The inheritance. How was it obtained? By works. Now let us ask, On what basis were infants circumcised? On the basis that they belonged to the covenant-nation and had right to the inheritance? Which covenant gives them right to the inheritance? The covenant of works. It has all gone terribly wrong, I regret to say.
  14. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    While I have not read "God of Promise" myself, and enjoy listening to Micheal Horton, I generally agree with these criticisms. The Mosaic Covenant should be looked at in the framework of the Covenant of Grace. While systematically, the three-fold use of the law exists within the giving of the law, the context of the ten-commandments warrants the 3rd use as primary. First the indicative, then the imperative.

    "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

    Now, do this...
  15. R. Scott Clark

    R. Scott Clark Puritan Board Senior

    Here are some sources on republication along with some commentary culled from Heidelblog.

    Did every Reformed theologian in the 17th century teach republication? No. Was it widely taught? Yes. Did they work out the details thoroughly? No. It's there, however. I'm sorry for the rough shape of some of these source references. They are culled from an old paper by Lee Irons. I need to go back and track down these and other sources and clean them up, but they serve to give the idea that the idea of republication certainly existed in the 17th century.


    As Mike Horton acknowledges in his recent work on covenant theology, one of the more difficult issues in covenant theology is how to relate the Mosaic covenant to the earlier Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Complicating matters is the old Dispensational doctrine that there are different ways of salvation under different "dispensations." I recognize that the more modern Dispensationalists abandoned that doctrine but the damage has been done. Not only is it virtually impossible, rhetorically, for Reformed folk to use the word "dispensation" (even though we used to use it regularly and it's quite useful word in describing the progress of redemptive history) without creating suspicion and confusion but there are lots of folk out there who read the Bible atomistically (chopping it up) and who think that we Christians have nothing to do with Abraham! Dispensationalism has also created a layer of difficulty by generating a reaction against Dispensationalism which has caused reluctance among some Reformed folk to recognize any differences between the Old (Moses) and New (Christ) Covenants. In their own ways, both the Dispensationalists and those who react against it flatten out the hills and valleys of redemptive history. The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.

    One of the interesting and useful features of the older (classic) covenant theology of the 17th century was the doctrine of "re-publication." It was widely held among 17th-century Reformed theologians that, in certain ways, the giving of the Law at Sinai was a "re-publication" of the Law given in the garden to Adam as part of the covenant of works (John Owen, Herman Witsius, Leonard van Rijssen, Johannes Marckius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston taught it). They took the promulgation of the law at Sinai as evidence of the covenant of works in the garden with Adam. They thought this way because they had a doctrine of natural or creational law, i.e., there is a moral law that was given in the garden that is reflected in the law given at Sinai.

    This re-publication of the Law was not a new "Dispensation" of salvation or way of being justified. Rather, the Mosaic national covenant with Israel was regarded by the Reformed as operating on multiple levels at the same time. As Paul says in Gal 3, the covenant of grace, the Abrahamic covenant is the administration of God's saving grace. It was and remains a covenant of grace. Paul's argument is that nothing about the Mosaic national covenant that changes God's promises made to and through Abraham. Hence Paul says that Abraham (Rom 3-4) is the father of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e., Jew and Gentile) before Moses, during the Old Covenant, and since.

    Thus, before, during, and after the Mosaic national covenant, all the elect were saved and justified by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solo Christo). So what was unique about the Mosaic national covenant? Three things:

    1) It was a national covenant. Neither the Abrahamic covenant nor the New Covenant were or are national. The Mosaic covenant had a civil and religious/ceremonial code embedded in it. The Mosaic covenant constituted Israel as a national people temporarily. The national covenant was very much about "insiders" and "outsiders." That's not to say that Gentiles could not be initiated. Quite to the contrary, they certainly were, but in so doing, they had to become ritually Israelite through circumcision. This national (civic and ceremonial) aspect distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the Abrahamic and the New Covenants which were and are not national but trans-national.

    One of the more important conclusions from this doctrine is one that our 17th century forefathers did not recognize very clearly is that the idea of a national covenant is defunct. God doesn't enter into national covenants with any national entity since the crucifixion. Christ's kingdom, expressed in his visible, institutional church through the preaching of the gospel, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline, knows no national boundaries (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2). The dividing wall (the civil and ceremonial laws, circumcision) has been broken down in the body of Jesus, the true Israel of God. After the expiration of the national covenant, the kingdom of God has no civil administration. Attempts to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration whether in theocracy or theonomy are fundamentally misguided. It is a puzzle how we can see so clearly that the Roman attempt to resurrect the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant is wrong but some cannot see how wrong it is to try to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration?

    2) It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel's status as the temporary national people of God. In Exod 24, Israel swore a blood oath that she, as a national people, would keep the law and it was on this legal basis that Israel was ultimately expelled from the promised land and on which basis she lost her status as the national people of God. Another layer of difficulty in this regard is that, as it seems to me, Israel broke this national covenant before the terms of the agreement were even delivered down the mountain! That pattern continued throughout her history so that the only reason that Israel retained the national covenant at all was the forebearance of God. Certainly Israel did not strictly merit retaining the national covenant. See Iain Duguid's chapter in CJPM. covenant justification cover.jpg

    3) It was temporary. The Mosaic national covenant was instituted about (depending on the date of the Pentateuch) 15 centuries before the Advent of Christ and it expired with the crucifixion of Christ. The New Testament makes clear (e.g., Acts 10; Acts 15; 2 Cor 3; the book of Hebrews!) the Mosaic Covenant is finished. It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments. At every point in their daily lives the Israelites were reminded of their sin and need for a Savior. Corporately, Israel served as the world's largest and longest and most colorful sermon illustration. Thus the writer to the Hebrews (ch. 2) says that Moses worked for Jesus. Moses' whole reason for being was to serve as a pointer to Christ (and as a pointer to the ultimate realities in heaven; see Heb 11).

    Finally, it has been argued by some (e.g., some of my friends on the Puritanboard) that the doctrine of re-publication is "unconfessional." To this I appeal to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1. This reading of the confession caused Thomas Boston, in his notes in E. F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scarsdale, NY: Westminster Discount Books, n.d.), 58, to exclaim,

    How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see.” These same theologians also held that Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. The doctrine of unity of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of republication were regarded as complementary not antithetical.

    I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication. If you want to research this here are some leads:

    See Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (1803; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 1,336–337; Leonard van Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae (Amsterdam: 1695.), 89. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 6.85. Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae (Amsterdam, 1749), 345–346; Peter Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 3 vols (Utrecht: 1699), 3.12.23.
  16. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Prof. Clark, are you able to show one of the "republication" sources advocating the nation was under a republished covenant of works? I seriously doubt it.

    Could the theory be any more contradictory? The Abrahamic covenant is supposed to be one of grace. What was Abraham promised? A seed and a land. All that is done by God in the Mosaic era is specifically said to be in faithfulness to the covenant made with the fathers. What has God done? Multiplied the seed into a nation, establishing the covenant privilege given to Abraham, and reaffirming the gift of the promised land. But then we are asked to believe that the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace issues in the establishment of a Mosaic republication of the covenant of works.

    I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity.

    Concerning national covenanting, you have to plow with reformed theology's heifer if you want to find out reformed theology's riddle.
  17. G.Wetmore

    G.Wetmore Puritan Board Freshman

    S. Spence wrote:
    R.Scott Clark wrote:
    Here is one of the main problems with Klinean covenantalism. Notice how the Mosaic covenant is on the one hand affirmed as being part of the covenant of grace (but only in a strange technical sense). Yet, after that affirmation is made, it seems to be rejected and we are told that the Mosaic covenant is a re-publication of the covenant of works. This is how it basically works. The reason that the Mosaic covenant is said to be part of the covenant of grace is that it occurs during the administration of the Abrahamic covenant! Notice how Dr. Clark says that the real continuity is between Abraham and Christ, not Moses. Furthermore, Dr. Horton says that the Mosaic covenant (of works) simply didn't annul the promise made to Abraham (of grace). Therefore, the question that the Klinean covenantalists (like Dr. Horton and Dr. Clark) need to answer is whether or not the mosaic covenant ITSELF was part of the covenant of Grace, apart from it's being delivered during the Abrahamic Covenant. They seem to think it was part of the covenant of grace simply because someone during it's adminstration was saved by faith, not because of the Mosaic covenant, but because of the Abrahamic. Therefore, with that logic, the Mosaic covenant, ITSELF, was part of the covenant of works. But, that covenant of works didn't negate the covenant of grace given to Abraham. Notice again what Dr. Clark says:
    According to Dr. Clark the only thing that makes the Mosaic covenant part of the Covenant of Grace is that those who participated in that Covenant were saved by the grace promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant itself was not part of the covenant of Grace, it was simply administered during the era of the covenant of grace!
  18. S. Spence

    S. Spence Puritan Board Freshman

    I don't really like writing on the behalf of Mike Horton, however just thought I should respond to this:

    I believe that while Dr Horton does believe the Mosaic covenant to be a republication of the C of W to some extent, he still sees it as an administration of the C of G. This is because the Mosaic covenant 'flows' directly from the Abrahamic.

    Exodus 2....
    23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew.

    Just another point:
    I can understand your logic Rev. Winzer and I'm fearful to disagree from you as I have greatly benefited from your posts in the past. However up and until I read 'God of Promise' I was a Reformed Baptist and it was actually through reading this book that I moved from the baptist position to the paedobaptist position.
  19. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    You may fin these interesting:



    The above are excellent in my opinion. :D

    I found Gill helpful:


    First, The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it.

    See also:

    If you feel like it here is Crisp's sermon The Two Covenants of Grace
  20. G.Wetmore

    G.Wetmore Puritan Board Freshman

    Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.
  21. S. Spence

    S. Spence Puritan Board Freshman

    I can't, I've actually lent the book to someone else!
    However if I have taken some of what Dr Horton says out of context I apologise.
  22. non dignus

    non dignus Puritan Board Sophomore

    When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.
  23. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

    I am in the covenant of grace. If I do not love the law and do as it commands and effectively disrespect my boss at work (5th commandment) and am lazy (stealing) then why would I not get kicked out of my job? Does that mean that I am participating in the covenant of works or that even in the CoG actions have consequences? The Father still disciplines us even when we are truly a part of the CoG.

    This is a long drawn out way of saying that even as Christians as a part of the CoG there still is the third use of the law as well as consequences for breaking it.
  24. non dignus

    non dignus Puritan Board Sophomore

    Good analogy, Chris. My point is that your job is not a covenant of grace. It is God's grace that you work, but the covenant with your boss is strictly performance based.
  25. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

    Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time! :lol:

    I think the point I was making that there isn't a covenant with my boss. In other words, there isn't a CoW within my larger CoG but rather it is the 3rd use of the law within my larger CoG. Even Abraham had stipulations/conditions within the unconditional CoG. Abraham had to walk uprightly and when he didn't he had to pay the consequences. I would say that sleeping with your maidservant might have caused some not so good consequences between him and Sarah. That doesn't mean that there was a republication of the CoW with Abraham.

    I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I'm making sense. I am more than eager for everyone to sharpen this rusty piece of iron in regards to covenenat theology.
  26. aleksanderpolo

    aleksanderpolo Puritan Board Freshman

    But they broke the law the minute the law was given, God still led them into the land and establish the kingdom, shouldn't that be viewed as more in line with CoG regarding the national promise? In CoW there is no grace in sinning
    Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

    I am not disagreeing that there are "do this and live" language in the Mosaic covenant, but there are similar language in the Abrahamic covenant:

    Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless

    Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

    And when God established His covenant with David's son:

    1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.

    Both of the covenant contain typological fulfillment (land promise, earthly kingdom) that are temporary in nature, should we also regard them as a republication of CoW in a typological sense?

    Or, would it be more accurate to say that CoG is a CoW fulfilled by Christ, therefore CoG intrinsically contain laws and commandment (that are to be fulfilled by Christ, Abraham certainly isn't blameless before God, his inheriting the land is according to grace, just like the Israelite). Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenant all contain law and commandments, the law in Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the CoW, but an expansion and exposition of the law in the CoG that is present but not at the forthfront of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant?

    I am confused... :p
  27. non dignus

    non dignus Puritan Board Sophomore

    I will ponder that 3rd use idea. But I think the job, like Sinai, is a works covenant that is overlaid the greater CoG so that they are working in tandem.
    I'm working through this too. Thanks for the sharpening!
  28. non dignus

    non dignus Puritan Board Sophomore

    I'm still learning this too. I believe much confusion arises when we picture the Abrahamic' and Mosaic' as running in a serial configuration rather than in parallel configuration. It was for Abraham's sake, not 'Moses', that God was gracious during the probation of Israel.

    Remember Christ was born under the law in order to fulfill what Adam failed to do.
    Christ,the second Adam was placed under a second works probation.
  29. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

    So when you say "is a works covenant" are you meaning that the idea that salvation could have been had if they walked accordingly to the law? Isn't that what the CoW was about? Attaining everlasting life? I think that perhaps the concept that everywhere we see law we see CoW is the point of stumbling? Is there any reason why there could not be law given with consequences as a part of the gracious covenant? Again, we would all hold to the third use of the law within the CoG so why could that not apply within the Mosaic administration of the CoG? Is there a necessity for making it CoW republication or is there another possible explanation?

    These are questions that I have -not necessarily addressed to you - but to everyone.

    I'm hoping to sort through these matters.
  30. non dignus

    non dignus Puritan Board Sophomore

    If I understand the question: Yes, if they had walked according to the law they would have only retained the land with all commensurate benefits.

    The Mosaic' is typological of salvation and condemnation under the original (now lapsed) CoW which is still running parallel to the CoG .
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page