Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The whole inclusion of infants part and how that is undermined...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?
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!
--For that the Old Testament did serve specially to prepare men to receive Christ, which in his appointed time was to come. For law was a schoolmaster unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). Therefore the greatest part of the Old Testament is spend propounding, repeating, and expounding the covenant of works. And because Christ was not yet manifested in the flesh, therefore the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is more sparingly and darkly set forth in it (Robert Rollock, Treatise of Effectual Calling, p. ___)
The testament is new in relation to what existed from the time of Moses and in relation to the promise made to the fathers. But it is new not in essence but in form. In the former circumstances the form of administration gave some evidence of the covenant of works, from which this testament is essentially different.
Since the complete difference between the new covenant and the old appeared only in the administration which came after Christ, this administration is properly termed the covenant and testament which is new. This differs also from the former administration in quality and quantity. Its difference in quality is in clarity and freedom. Clarity occurs, first in the more distinct expression than heretofore of the doctrine of grace and salvation through Christ and through faith in him ... Freedom comes, first, in doing away with government by law, or the intermixture of the covenant of works, which held the ancient people in a certain bondage. (Ames, Marrow, 206)
The covenant of works is that in which God promiseth everlasting life unto a man that in all respects performeth perfect obedience to the law of works, adding thereunto threatenings of eternal death, if he shall not perform perfect obedience thereto. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, whilst he was in the first estate of integrity: the same covenant God did repeat and make again by Moses with the people of Israel (Amandus Polanus, Syntagma, ___)
The second administration of this covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; where, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue first graven in man’s heart, God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his neighbour, expressed in the decalogue; according to the tenor of which law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness, upon condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded; which condition they accepted of, promising an absolute obedience, Exod. xix.8, “All things which the Lord hath said we will
do;” and also submitting themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, “Amen” to the curse of the law, “Cursed be every one that confirmeth not all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen. (William Premble, ____)
It pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period [from Moses to Christ] under a rigid legal economy – both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set
forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed. In this respect, the law is called the letter that kills (2 Cor. 3:6) and the handwriting which was contrary to us (Col. 2:14), because by it men professed themselves guilty and children of death, the declaration being written by their own blood in circumcision and by the blood of victims
According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it ... On the part of the people, [this external economy of legal teaching] was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom. 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.
(Turretin, 2.227)
Their fall in Adam was almost forgotten [by the Jews] ... Nay, in that long course of time betwixt Adam and Moses, men had forgotten what was sin ... Rom. v.20, therefore, “the law entered,” that Adam’s offense and their own actual transgression might abound, so that now the Lord saw it needful, that there should be a new edition and publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect unbelievers to come to Christ, the promised seed, and that the grace of God in Christ to the elect believers might appear the more exceeding glorious (Marrow of Modern Divinity, 61)
Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount
Sinai to the Israelites. First, the covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the ten commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people.
Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten
commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and the sanctions thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed (Thomas Boston's Annotations of the Marrow, 56).
Owen, Commentary on Hebrews vol 6.80-81
Witsius, Economy, 2.359
The Apostle Gal. 4.24 ... mentions a double covenant, the former of which is “by works of the law” ... If you say the Apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the Apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is re-enacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works (Peter Van Mastricht, ___)
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.
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.
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.
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!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.
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!
Originally Posted by armourbearer
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.
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.
Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.
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.When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.
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.
When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.
Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time!
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.
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...
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!
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?