Is 1689 Federalism Novel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

See above. I found Brandon’s clarification helpful, because I did get lost in trying to determine how many isolated covenants were identified by the 1689 Federalist. 1689 Federalism has some various views on the mosaic as I understand their position, but so do Presbyterians. But, in my opinion, they also overly isolate every other covenant not inaugurated in the NT.

I cannot get around the Abrahamic Not being an Administration of CoG (Acts 2 ) nor the post-fall covenant with Adam in Gen. 3. Was Abraham not a Gentile?

Is the 1689 Federalist view of the OT covenants, not similar to McArthurs’s Covenantal Structure?
 
Last edited:

See above. I found Brandon’s clarification helpful, because I did get lost in trying to determine how many isolated covenants were identified by the 1689 Federalist. 1689 Federalism has some various views on the mosaic as I understand their position, but so do Presbyterians. But, in my opinion, they also overly isolate every other covenant not inaugurated in the NT.

I cannot get around the Abrahamic Not being an Administration of CoG (Acts 2 ) nor the post-fall covenant with Adam in Gen. 3. Was Abraham not a Gentile?

Is the 1689 Federalist view of the OT covenants, not similar to McArthurs’s Covenantal Structure?

I didn't come here to speak on behalf of anyone's position, so please accept my answer as one of just another person in a sea of people reading God's Word and trying to exegete it properly, appealing to other texts to help with as much prayer and discernment as a wretch can muster.

In one sense, Abraham (the person) was a Gentile. He was from Ur of the Chaldees, there were no chosen people prior to his calling (unless you want to rope in Noah and Adam, maybe?) in the sense that we think about the choosing and calling of those who would later all call themselves Hebrews. We get Hebrew, I believe, from the Sons of Ebre (beginning with Abraham). One text I'm reading in Kingdom of Priests by Eugene H. Merrill talks about an 'abiru (or 'apiru ) people (not a typo) that may have been frequently confused with the Hebrew people. This problem may have later been remedied by referring to themselves as Israelites.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the very first time the word 'the Hebrew' is used, it's referring to Abraham (in Genesis 14:13). As he was the first person chosen, he was made a Hebrew (but was formerly a Gentile) by virtue of God's act of choosing. This may be why some take issue with referring to Abraham as a Gentile.

Maybe some people might say that Abram was a Gentile and that Abraham was the first Hebrew, but what's interesting is that in Genesis 14:13, Abram is called a Hebrew. Similar to us, I suppose Abram was first chosen by God (the First Mover) while he was yet a Gentile. Yet, having been chosen, he was made a Hebrew.

P.S. I embolded a part of the post I quoted so it would be obvious what question I was trying to answer. Grace and peace. <3
 

Attachments

  • ref.PNG
    ref.PNG
    20.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a very uncharitable view, especially since in this very thread I gave a very concise summary of what 1689 Federalists (generally) believe. Could a six year old understand it? Maybe, maybe not, but I think Mr. Einstein's quote is actually rubbish anyway. There are tons of things that NO ONE can explain so that a six year old could understand it, and it doesn't mean that the explainer doesn't know what they are talking about, it just means that some topics are above the understanding of a six year old.
Sean, I interacted with that post and asked a direct question to which I received no answer. Why not answer the question, in your own words, which is: in what way that is worth making a distinction and taking on a separate name is Federalism different than Vanilla?
Another question: do you agree that God the Father and God the son covenanted together in eternity past to redeem a people?
 
Just seems suspicious that a new baptist label arose in the 20th century and began claiming Owen, Gill, and Augustine as being in line with 1689 Federalism in their covenant theology.

Grant, at first blush I agree but after digging more, I found it is simply the result of RBs like James Renihan actually going back and reading the 17th century Baptists and going from there. Generally speaking, Baptists haven't done a good job valuing historical theology so much had either been lost or never re-printed in the first place.

As I've noted before, its actually something I appreciate about 1689 Federalism - they seem to actually care about historical theology and tracing the development of doctrine. This sets them apart from other systems such as Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalists who either try to hide their origins or deceptively claim early church historic premillienialism as if it were dispensational premillenialism.

What I haven't seen is the same kind of historical theology work from the other Reformed Baptists who are criticizing 1689 Federalism. I would really like to see, beyond a couple references to John Gill here and there, specific citations of where they trace their historical theology. I think that would be a helpful point of comparison for anyone interested. Be specific and get your sources out in the open so the rest of us can examine and make our own judgments.
 
As a former Reformed Baptist for 30 years Rich Barcellos and the Renihan's have done a lot of good research. I even got to read and own one of Mike Renihan's works on the Anti peadobaptist John Tombe. I read the Nehemiah Coxe Covenant Theology book with Owen's comments from Hebrews Chapter 8 and gave away many of them. Sam Renihan did a lot of good work also. I particularly appreciated their work on the Law of God and how the Decalogue is still fully our duty even when it comes to the Fourth Commandment. These things are all very good. They are common. One of the most modern propagated books before all of this was Fred Malone's book Baptism of Disciples Alone. Up to that point a lot of people depended upon Sam Waldron's book on the 1689. There wasn't much historical work done from a Reformed Baptist position as far as I could tell.

Just for reference, the link below is where I landed on some of this.

Why I Was Drawn Into The Nuanced Republication and Mosaic Covenant Study
 
1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?

If Brandon chooses to jump back in this thread, he would be the guy to give you a properly nuanced answer to that question. If I come across something in the writings that may help answer, I will come back and post it but I just don't have the time to do a search right now. I am fairly new to the position myself so I wouldn't want to give an answer that doesn't properly represent the position.

Regarding the comparison between 1689 Federalism and Dispensationalism, this might help. I am slowly working through Clarence Bass' book "Backgrounds to Dispensationalism" which is a very well researched work that gets to the historical roots of the system.

Bass lists the following 12 distinguishing features of Dispensationalism in his first chapter:

1) Dispensationalism's view of the nature and purpose of a dispensation
2) A rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture
3) A dichotomy between Israel and the church
4) A restricted view of the church
5) A Jewish concpet of the kingdom
6) A distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man
7) A compartmentalization of Scripture
8) A pre-tribulational rapture
9) Its view and purpose of the great tribulation
10) Its view of the nature of the millenial reign of Christ
11) Its view of the eternal state
12) Its view of the apostate nature of Christendom

These take a bit of explaining so I will copy what I have written elsewhere. Most of this is a summary of Bass' explanations but I have worked in my own comments and observations here and there:

Nature and Purpose of a Dispensation
  • Scofield - "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (Scofield Reference Bible)
  • In each dispensation, God changes his method in dealing with mankind concerning man's sin and responsibility. These are seen as "tests." These changes are what accounts for Dispensationalism's high degree of discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.
The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

  • In fighting the rise of liberalism in the early 20th century, Dispensationalism insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture and a resistance to any method that seemed to "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the text. Unfortunately, this methodology was applied very rigidly and forces meaning upon some texts they were never meant to convey. In fact, when NT writers seem to violate this rigidity when quoting the OT, Dispensationalists tend to have a difficult time explaining what is going on.
  • This rigid literalness leads to a strong dichotomy between Israel and the church. You then tend to hear the refrain "promises made to ethnic Israel must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel" and not the church. Thus, you necessarily need a literal future millennium that focuses on fulfillment of promises made to ethnic Israel.
The Dichotomy Between Israel and the Church
  • "God binds himself to fulfill every promise to Israel exactly, and, since every detail of these covenants has not yet been fulfilled, Christ's future reign on earth will be for the purpose of fulfilling them in a relation to Israel distinctly different from His present relation to the church." (24-5)
  • "The whole of God's redemptive relation to man is centered in HIs covenantal relation to Israel." (25)
  • The church and Israel relate to God by different principles.
  • The church is a "parenthesis" in the master plan of God dealing with Israel. Personally, I was shocked the first time I heard this and was one of the major points where I started to turn away from Dispensationalism is it did not cohere whatsoever with my reading of Scripture.
A Restricted View of the Church
  • "The church is an 'interruption' of God's plan with Israel necessitated by the rejection of the kingdom by the Jews when it was offered to them by Jesus." Thus Darby believed the church is NOT a part of God's original redemptive plan. (27)
A Jewish Concept of the Kingdom
  • Jesus offered a literal kingdom to the Jewish on the basis of a literal fulfillment of the promises of Abraham. The future millennium will contain the physical and literal fulfillment of the kingdom that the Jews rejected with Jesus physically reigning over them from Jerusalem on the throne of David.
  • The church in no way fulfills any of these promises to Israel.
  • Some Dispensationalists actually preach two "gospels." Dwight Pentecost taught that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom and Paul taught the gospel of grace.
  • Dispensationalists think the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" are two different things instead of different wording referring to the same thing.
The Distinction Between Law and Grace, Creating a Multiple Basis for God's Dealing with Man
  • Bass admits this distinguishing mark is controversial and denied by Dispensationalists. Bass believes that following the system to its logical conclusions results in two different means of salvation - one by following the law and one by following grace. Bass does admit that Dispensationalists deny this. In fairness, I'll let it sit at that.
The Compartmentalization of Scripture
  • "Dispensationalism divides Scripture according to classes of people, insisting that no single passage can have primary application to two dispensations at the same time." Thus, in Lewis Sperry Chafer's words, "iwayt does not follow that the Christian is appointed by God to conform to those governing principles which were the will of God for people of other dispensations." (37)
  • Personal note - when I started my Christian journey in a Dispensational church, the OT ended up being largely dead to me due to this hermeneutical principles. Not entirely so as we could still see certain (though limited) prophecies about Christ, lessons about the nature of God and so forth, but much is interpreted as entirely to Israel either under the Mosaic dispensation or to be fulfilled in the coming millenial age.
The Pre-Tribulational Rapture
  • A pre-tribulational rapture of the church occurs nowhere in church history before Dispensationalism.
  • "The church must be raptured out of the world before the tribulation because it is not a part of the kingdom, which will be in its initial stage of restoration through the remnant that survives the tribulation." (40)
The Purpose of the Great Tribulation

  • A belief in a tribulation is not unique to Dispensationalism and finds its roots in the historic premillenialism of the early church. However, the purpose of this tribulation is what makes Dispensationalism unique.
  • According to Dispensationalism the tribulation involves - a literal 7 year period made up of two 3.5 year periods, a covenant between Israel and the antichrist that the antichrist eventually breaks, preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, an elect remnant of Israel numbering 144,000 who survive the tribulation and enter into the millenial kingdom ruled by Christ, the church is removed during the rapture before the tribulation to make way for dealing with a new dispensation focusing on ethnic Israel
The Nature of the Millenial Reign of Christ
  • The purpose of the future, literal millenial reign of Christ is to fulfill OT promises God had made to ethnic Israel.
  • Christ will rule from the literal throne of David in Jerusalem and will form a theocratic government. All nations will be subservient to Israel at this time.
  • The Jewish temple is to be rebuilt and literal animal sacrifices will resume. This sacrifices do not anticipate the coming of the Messiah but commemorate his prior coming.
The Eternal State
  • The New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 is an actual city where the church and redeemed Israel will dwell forever.
The Apostate Nature of Christendom
  • "The true church contains only those who have been saved, a limited number out of the mass of professing Christians." As Baptists, we may find ourselves agreeing. However, since Darby viewed most churches as corrupt, he tended to see those disagreeing with him as being in some state of apostasy.
Of course not all Dispensationalists may agree with these distinguishing features but this is a summary based on Bass' work.

Now let's take Bass' features and see what 1689 Federalism has in common:

1) Dispensationalism's view of the nature and purpose of a dispensation - No
2) A rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture - No
3) A dichotomy between Israel and the church - No, not in the way Dispensationalists explain the differences but certainly different from Westminster Federalism
4) A restricted view of the church - No
5) A Jewish concpet of the kingdom - No
6) A distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man - No in the sense that 1689 Fed sees all people at all times saved by the grace of the New Covenant alone
7) A compartmentalization of Scripture - No
8) A pre-tribulational rapture - No
9) Its view and purpose of the great tribulation - No
10) Its view of the nature of the millenial reign of Christ - No
11) Its view of the eternal state - No
12) Its view of the apostate nature of Christendom - No

According to Bass' criteria, 1689 Federalism fails the Dispensationalism test at every point.

Brandon has done a similar kind of thing in this post using Ryrie's 3 marks of dispensationalism - https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

Brandon also makes the following observation in that post that he has experienced and I have noticed here at PB from time to time as well:

"This is just stating the obvious. Of course 1689 Federalism disagrees with Westminster Federalism. That’s the point. But the definition of Dispensationalism is not “anything that disagrees with Westminster Federalism.” When pressed, some try to soften their rhetoric by saying 1689 Federalism is not 1:1 Dispensationalism, but it is “in the same category” as Dispensationalism. What is that category? “Anything that disagrees with Westminster Federalism.”'

If you are stuck in the false dichotomy of everything must be either "one substance/two administrations" or "Dispensationalism" of course your tendency is to throw 1689 Federalism in the Dispensationalism category. But you would be wrong to do so. Why? Its not Dispensational at all. Its another view entirely that hasn't been taught in the battle between the two dominant systems.

Apologies for any weird formatting errors - the forum editor is giving me fits at the moment.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting book title since I, a Presbyterian, also believe in baptizing only disciples.
It is a very interesting read. I fell hard into it because I really didn't have a good understanding concerning the Mosaic Covenant. It takes a lot of reading and piecing together historical context along with understanding the exegesis done.

Since this is a thread concerning the Anti Peado Baptist Federalism topic it would be good to stay on the topic. This could easily turn into a Reformed vs RBF debate.
 
Could you expound on that? Do you hold to a paedofaith position or do you mean to say you are credobaptist?
I don't want to derail this thread, but since you asked...

I was admittedly being a little tongue-in-cheek, but also somewhat serious. I believe in baptizing the children (even the infants) of believers, so I am not a "credobaptist." I take the present participle βαπτίζοντες in Matt. 28:19 to be a participle of means: "Make disciples of all nations by baptizing them," etc. So, it is not that a disciple must be made and subsequently be baptized, but rather a disciple is made by baptism. And, in that sense, I believe in baptizing only disciples.
 
1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?
I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no. Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.
 
I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no.
That surprises me. I'm not as well-read as I ought to be on this, but it seems like Genesis 17:6-8 and Jeremiah's New Covenant in 31:31-33 fit together like bookends.

In both cases God claims his people, and God says, "I will be their God."
 
I'm far from an expert on 1689 Federalism, but from what I've gathered they would say the Abrahamic covenant endures, but now only with his spiritual seed - true Israel - which, if that's correctly their position, would be an important factor to consider in this discussion.
 
Can you tell us about your journey away from it?
See my posts in this thread from back in 2020. I think many great points were made on the thread. It truly came down to my interpretation of Galatians 3. One day I was reading it and it finally clicked. It was a lightbulb moment in my walk.
 
My current view:

1) Jesus fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant as the true offspring (Galatians 3:16, 19)

16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. - Galatians 3:16-17 (ESV)

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. - Galatians 3:19 (ESV)


2) All those who are spiritually united to Christ by faith are Abraham's children and receive the blessings through Christ (Galatians 3:29)

29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Galatians 3:29

3) The land promises of Canaan were fulfilled by Israel per the OT. However, the land of Canaan typologically points forward to an even greater land promise in the New Heavens and New Earth

Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. - Joshua 21:43-45 (ESV)

“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. 15 But just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. - Joshua 23:14-16

I don't know whether that means we are "under" the Abrahamic Covenant or it is more proper to say as believers we receive the blessings through our union with Christ. I would probably opt for the latter just as Jesus has fulfilled the types and shadows of the Mosaic Covenant and I do not think it is at all proper to say that Christians are "under" the Mosaic Covenant. Neither Abraham nor Moses are our mediators. Our mediator is Christ. Christ is the one who fulfills (not "annuls") the Abrahamic Covenant as the true Israelite and offspring of Abraham. We participate secondarily through our union with Christ.

I think it is important for us to see the promises as "through Christ" and not jump straight from Israel to the church. Thus:

- Promises to Israel -> Jesus -> New Covenant Believers in Union with Christ as His Body

Not

- Promises to Israel -> New Covenant Believers

This is obvious but Christians have no claim to the Abrahamic promises unless they belong to Christ.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Galatians 3:27-29

greenbaggins commented in the thread Ethan linked to that Galatians 3 is a difficult passage for Baptists. I for one don't see the difficulty at all.
 
To offer some clarification:
1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?
No. (Well, to be precise, some members of the Covenant of Circumcision were also believers. But not all believers are members of the Covenant of Circumcision). The Covenant of Circumcision promised the advent of the Christ according to the flesh and that He would bless the nations (by establishing the New Covenant in His blood). See this lecture from Sam Renihan, as well as his book The Mystery of Christ https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221183215644
Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.
This is an important text. I wrote a lengthy essay on it, interacting with and building upon T. David Gordon's commentary on Galatians. In short, we need to carefully distinguish historia and ordo salutis in the text as it relates to the three different covenants mentioned. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/
That surprises me. I'm not as well-read as I ought to be on this, but it seems like Genesis 17:6-8 and Jeremiah's New Covenant in 31:31-33 fit together like bookends.

In both cases God claims his people, and God says, "I will be their God."
See here http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/gen-177-8/
 
The above post has it at last: an admission that 1689 Fed believes the Abrahamic Covenant is over and done with. With this I disagree, because we are sons of Abraham (spiritually): we are part of a posterity numberless as the stars that God promised Abraham as the father of the faithful. The Seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the world are to be blessed is still saving people and still graffing them (KJV language) into the tree of Israel. Israel has not died out nor been done away with: all believers are become the Israel of God. The Israel that began with Abraham and his son and grandson. They are not brought in to join us, rather, we are grafted into the branches of their tree.
 
Let's look for a minute at each of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant:

1) "I will make of you a great nation" (Gen: 12:2) - Did God make the descendants of Abraham into a great nation? Yes he did.
2) "I will bless you and make your name great so that you will be a blessing" (Gen 12:2) - Did God bless Abraham and make his name great? Yes he did. However, I do believe that the "you will be a blessing" is ultimately fulfilled in and through Christ and those united to him.
3) "I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? Yes he did.
4) "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? He is doing it through Christ and the church and the Great Commission. Ethnic Israel was NOT a blessing to the families of the earth.
5) Showing Abram the land of Canaan he says, "To your offspring I will give this land" (Gen. 12:7) - Did God give the offspring of Abraham the land of Canaan? Yes he did.
6) "Your very own son will be your heir" (Gen. 15:4) - Did God give Abraham an heir that was his own son? Yes he did.
7) Offspring as numerous in the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5) - Did God make the offspring of Abraham as numerous as the stars in the sky? Yes he did.
8) "You shall be the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:4) - Did God do this? He did it both in a physical sense and is doing it in a spiritual sense as well though Christians who are the offspring of Abraham by faith and union with Christ.
9) "I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8) - Now there are two things going on here - Israel did get the land of Canaan but it was not everlasting for them. They lost this. This tells me there is more than one recipient of the promise in view.

As you go through the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and then see how Scripture says these promises are fulfilled, you notice that there are more than one recipients of the promises in view:

1) Ethinic Israel - the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
2) Jesus - the perfect Israelite and singular "offspring" of Abraham Paul talks about in Genesis 3
3) Christians - who in union with Christ become heirs of the promises to Abraham

As it see it, the error of the Dispensationalists is to say all the promises are for ethnic Israel. Other errors say all the promises are only for Christians/the church. Instead, I see a progressive fulfillment of the promises.

If you say that only Christians fulfill the land promises or the "stars of the heavens" promises, what do you do with all the OT passages that say God has fulfilled those promises that he made to the patriarchs? Again I quote the passages in Joshua I reference above and a few others:

The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. - Deuteronomy 1:10 (ESV)

Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven. - Deuteronomy 10:22

Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. - Joshua 21:43-45 (ESV)


“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. 15 But just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. - Joshua 23:14-16


And you gave them kingdoms and peoples and allotted to them every corner. So they took possession of the land of Sihon king of Heshbon and the land of Og king of Bashan. 23 You multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, and you brought them into the land that you had told their fathers to enter and possess. 24 So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. - Nehemiah 9:22-24
 
Let's look for a minute at each of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant:

1) "I will make of you a great nation" (Gen: 12:2) - Did God make the descendants of Abraham into a great nation? Yes he did.
2) "I will bless you and make your name great so that you will be a blessing" (Gen 12:2) - Did God bless Abraham and make his name great? Yes he did. However, I do believe that the "you will be a blessing" is ultimately fulfilled in and through Christ and those united to him.
3) "I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? Yes he did.
4) "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? He is doing it through Christ and the church and the Great Commission. Ethnic Israel was NOT a blessing to the families of the earth.
5) Showing Abram the land of Canaan he says, "To your offspring I will give this land" (Gen. 12:7) - Did God give the offspring of Abraham the land of Canaan? Yes he did.
6) "Your very own son will be your heir" (Gen. 15:4) - Did God give Abraham an heir that was his own son? Yes he did.
7) Offspring as numerous in the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5) - Did God make the offspring of Abraham as numerous as the stars in the sky? Yes he did.
8) "You shall be the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:4) - Did God do this? He did it both in a physical sense and is doing it in a spiritual sense as well though Christians who are the offspring of Abraham by faith and union with Christ.
9) "I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8) - Now there are two things going on here - Israel did get the land of Canaan but it was not everlasting for them. They lost this. This tells me there is more than one recipient of the promise in view.

As you go through the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and then see how Scripture says these promises are fulfilled, you notice that there are more than one recipients of the promises in view:

1) Ethinic Israel - the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
2) Jesus - the perfect Israelite and singular "offspring" of Abraham Paul talks about in Genesis 3
3) Christians - who in union with Christ become heirs of the promises to Abraham

As it see it, the error of the Dispensationalists is to say all the promises are for ethnic Israel. Other errors say all the promises are only for Christians/the church. Instead, I see a progressive fulfillment of the promises.

If you say that only Christians fulfill the land promises or the "stars of the heavens" promises, what do you do with all the OT passages that say God has fulfilled those promises that he made to the patriarchs? Again I quote the passages in Joshua I reference above and a few others:
Jim, do you think that the covenant is primarily about the promises to Israel, or about the salvation of the elect? Which one is subservient to the other? Is one perhaps an earnest; a picture; a type: or is the physical aspect what it was all about, and it just sort of vaguely showed some future thing that wasn't really connected to it?

But Romans contradicts your point #4, when Paul instructs us not to despise ethnic Israel, because theirs are the fathers; they were given the law; they preserved it in writing; Messiah came through their line. And while Israel was a physical nation, they did much good: the Queen of Sheba was converted; the Ninevites; Naaman; Ruth, Rahab, and all the strangers that joined themselves to Israel, and then even in captivity they witnessed through Daniel and his companions, and Nebuchadnezzar got instructed. Not much of a blessing, you say? I think the folks I mentioned disagree.
 
It is the very sign of circumcision itself that points to the spiritual nature of the covenant with Abraham. For we are told that circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. The "righteousness of faith" is the message of the gospel. This covenant always pointed beyond the earthly and to the spiritual and it did that from day one. Furthermore, we cannot argue that what Israel received in the OT was the true fulfillment of these promises because of what we are taught in Hebrews 11 - they desire a heavenly country. The land of Israel was not the end game. A bunch of physical descendants was not the end game. And the fact is, it was never the end game. The promises to Abraham always pointed to the ultimate spiritual realities, even when he circumcised his household immediately after receiving the promises. The fact of the matter is that we are partakers of those covenant promises. I know that Baptists will argue that our children are not, but we all should be able to agree that at least believers are partakers of those covenant promises with Abraham in Genesis 17. In fact, we are partakers of a "fuller" version of those promises then our OT brothers and sisters, although the ultimate fulfillment remains to be experienced in the new heavens and the new earth.
 
To offer some clarification:

No. (Well, to be precise, some members of the Covenant of Circumcision were also believers. But not all believers are members of the Covenant of Circumcision). The Covenant of Circumcision promised the advent of the Christ according to the flesh and that He would bless the nations (by establishing the New Covenant in His blood). See this lecture from Sam Renihan, as well as his book The Mystery of Christ https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221183215644

This is an important text. I wrote a lengthy essay on it, interacting with and building upon T. David Gordon's commentary on Galatians. In short, we need to carefully distinguish historia and ordo salutis in the text as it relates to the three different covenants mentioned. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/

See here http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/gen-177-8/
What is the Covenant of Circumcision? It's the Abrahamic Covenant last I checked. Are we making up new covenants here? What am I missing.
 
COVENANT RENEWAL

THE MOSAIC COVENANT

by Ray R. Sutton

Genesis 1:26-28 Matthew 28:18-20

January, 1992

Covenants do not occur in a vacuum. They can’t because they are always restorative in nature. They connect to previous covenants, building on what goes before and attempting to bring about what a prior covenant arrangement failed to do.

The Mosaic covenant is a resurrection of the Abrahamic covenant, just as the Abrahamic had been to the Noahic, and the Noahic had been to the Adamic. The Mosaic covenant was a new Adamic covenant, pulling through the Abrahamic covenant and not around the covenant with Moses’ forefathers. As such, it was a covenant of grace and not of works because the covenant with Abraham (And I believe all of the covenants) was based on God’s gracious acts. How do we know that the Mosaic covenant was a renewed Abrahamic covenant?

. The Renewed Abrahamic Covenant

Some scholars have viewed the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as two entirely different covenants.(1) If these two can be distanced from one another, a case can be built for how Christ in the New Covenant could restore the Abrahamic and not the Mosaic covenant. Although the Abrahamic covenant was not without law, the presumption of a lawless Abrahamic covenant could be proposed. The New Covenant would effectively be emptied of the Mosaic themes, which consist of the clearest statements of the ethical nature of a Biblical covenant.

On the other hand, if these covenants have a symbiotic relationship, then the modern day antinomians are trapped. The Mosaic is the renewed Abrahamic. The Mosaic arrangement not only flows out of the Abrahamic covenant but is the renewed Abrahamic covenant.

In the conversation between God and Moses we read:

(Exo 6:2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:



(Exo 6:3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(Exo 6:4) And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.



(Exo 6:5) And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.



(Exo 6:6) Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:



(Exo 6:7) And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.



(Exo 6:8) And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.



(Exodus 6:2-8).

God nowhere infers that a new covenant separate from the Abrahamic is about to be instituted. In fact, He indicates continuity between Abraham and Moses, when He calls for Moses to fulfill the Abrahamic. He doesn’t want a change. He wants the Abrahamic covenant to extend forward and He raises up Moses to do it.

William Dumbrell, former dean at Regent’s in Vancouver, has made the same point in a significant way. When he describes the covenant that was made at Sinai (Exodus19:3-6), he says the following:

What kind of covenant is in mind? Nothing definitely covenantal has been advanced in the book [Exodus] so far. Indeed, to this point the notion of a covenant has been associated only with the Abrahamic covenant in Exod. 6:1-8. Most suggest the reference to covenant in verse 5 is prospective and looks forward to the Sinaitic covenant, which is about to be concluded. What argues against this, however, is the fact that the phrase “keep my covenant” (relative to a human response to a divine covenant) is used in the Hebrew Bible only where obedience to a prior divine commitment is being restated (compare the fairly exact parallels incorporating the use of berit and samar in Gen. 17:9-10; 1 Kgs. 11 :11; Ezek. 17:14; Ps. 78:10; 103:18; 132:12). This and other factors that will emerge make it probable that the covenant referred to is something preexisting [emphasis mine]. This can, of course, only be the patriarchal covenant [emphasis mine] with which continuity had been carefully forged by Moses’ call in Exod. 3:13-15. (2)

To summarize Dumbrell’s observation: When God tells anyone to “keep My covenant,” the presumption is that one already exists, or else God would say, “Enter My covenant.” Since God tells Israel to keep covenant in Exodus 19, an antecedent covenant stands in force. It has to be the Abrahamic, or what Dumbrell calls the “patriarchal covenant.”

Notice the similarity between Abraham’s and Moses’ ministries. Both were called to enter the Promised Land from the outside and to take possession of the covenant promises; both led an exodus; Abraham even went down to Egypt and was driven out and back to the Promised Land on different occasions. Both were called upon to circumcise their seed as a sign of the covenant (Exodus 4:24), judging by God’s anger at Moses for not applying the covenant sanctions and thereby further establishing the continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.

Finally, both died before possession of the land was secured. Thus, the Mosaic covenant is a resurrection of the Abrahamic.

Dumbrell, however, presses with further proof of a continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. He says,

The separation of Israel from her broad cultural environment [The Exodus], her invitation to obey a covenant already existing, her call to be a light to lighten the Gentiles – the model for the world that her role would provide – all of this is confessedly Abrahamic in its tenor. As the continuity of the exodus narratives suggests (compare Exod. 3:13-15; 6:1-8), the Sinai covenant was in fact a particularization of Gen. 12:1-3 in the experience of Israel. Like Abraham, Israel was called outside of the land that would be hers. Like Abram, Israel would be a great nation (goy), occupying a “promised land.” Like Abram, the world would find its source of blessing in this Israel.(3)

These strong parallels are obvious to Dumbrell and the unbiased reader of Exodus. Moses was a new Abraham. Mr. Dumbrell supports this by even speaking of the Mosaic covenant as unconditional in the same sense as the Abrahamic covenant. He says,

At once, then, a further factor emerges that endorses more than just a limited concept of unconditionality. The strand of covenant theology that began with Abram continues with Sinai. It will add kingship to its ambit with 2 Samuel 7. Its direct unconditionality, because it is divinely imposed and sustained, will emerge in Jer. 31:31-34. On two counts, therefore – the remnant on the human side and divine design on the other – a worshipping community among whom God would dwell was bound to emerge. They will be priests and kings.(4)

Dumbrell’s conclusion concerns worship. As God’s covenant with Abraham established a worshipping community, so did His covenant with Moses. We should consider some differences between the two covenants.

The Difference Between the TWO Covenants

The primary difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, what I call an advancement or improvement, is that Moses was born of the priestly line, the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1-2). Moses, being of the priestly line, is called to transform the Abrahamic Covenant into a priestly one. Indeed, he is called to change the nature of the kingdom. He was to make Israel into a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6), creating a priesthood of believers.

Therefore, the Mosaic covenant has an extensive discussion of law. It does not have this emphasis to indicate in any way that the basis of the covenant is works. Moses called Israel to be “circumcised of heart” (Deuteronomy 4:29; 10:12), which are the very statements quoted by Jesus and referred to by the Apostle Paul as the true test of a true Jew (Romans 2:25-29). The law emphasis of Moses presumes salvation by grace. It is simply for the priesthood to know God’s standard of holiness, and how to be a distinct people from the Gentiles, the non-priesthood. The law of the Mosaic Covenant was never intended to be understood as a works system; the apostate leaders of Israel turned it into this just se apostate leaders of the modern Church do the same to the New Covenant, the greatest grace covenant in the history of man.



Yet, it should be understood that when the priesthood changes, as Hebrews says, the law will change (Hebrews 7:12). The law of the Mosaic Covenant changed because the priesthood changed. The Jews are no longer the priests of God. There is law in the New Covenant, called new commandments that are nothing less than renewed and transfigured old commandments (cf. Leviticus 19:18 and I John 2:4-8). Thus, law is not graceless nor is grace lawless and the Mosaic covenant is neither graceless nor lawless. This we will discuss at length when we consider the Mosaic covenant as it is fulfilled in the Church. First, however, we should discuss the Mosaic covenant as a renewed Abrahamic covenant in all of its own uniqueness.

Transcendence: New Mediator (Exodus 1-5)

The Mosaic Covenant fulfills all the covenants that have gone before and anticipates in the fulfillment of each one the coming of Christ.

First, the Mosaic Covenant is a new creation because of the parallel between the first creation of the Adamic Covenant and the birth of Moses. The name Moses means water-son. He is drawn out of the water as a new creation. Yet, he is a son who emerges from the water to lead his nation just as Jesus later walks out of the Jordan waters to lead his people.

Second, Moses is a new Noah. From the description of the vessel in which he floated on the Nile (Exodus 2:3), he is saved by a miniature ark from the waters. Except, he has no family. He is a baby saved by an ark, anticipating the coming of Christ who will rest in his own manger-ark.

Third, Moses is a new Abraham. As Abraham entered conflict with Egypt and saw plagues fall on the Egyptians (Genesis 12:17), so Moses did the same. Abraham was called to ratify his covenant by circumcision. Moses was commanded to do the same (4:25ff.). In so doing, he was, a type of Christ. As Moses opposed Pharaoh, so Christ battled the new Pharaoh, Herod, a man who slaughtered the innocent babies just as Pharaoh had done (Exodus 1 :15-22), and who circumcised His new nation with the circumcision of baptism, the replacement of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Thus, the birth of Moses dramatically shows us that he is the beginning of a new covenant.

Deliverer Themes

The early chapters of Exodus present the mediator or deliverer themes, often characteristic of the beginning of a new covenant. Moses is presented as a priest who will deliver His people.



First, as a priest, he is specifically said to be of the tribe of Levi. He is raised up out of the Nile River, symbolizing his purity and cleanness, particular characteristics that will be demanded of the new nations of priests whom he will help to raise up.

Second, Moses appears as a guardian of the covenant, the primary function of the priests throughout Scripture, beginning with Genesis (Genesis 2:15). Almost immediately after his birth, he is seen attempting to protect (guard) a Hebrew from being killed (Exodus 2:11 -15). He was right to kill the Egyptian because the original text says that the Egyptian was attempting to kill the Hebrew, which is unfortunately translated “beat” by most texts (Exodus 2:11). This act in itself is part of the carrying out of the Abrahamic Covenant which says that God will bless those who bless and curse those who curse Israel. Moses was blessing Israel which is a specific priestly, and later Aaronic, function.

Third, Moses fled from Israel because Israel did not want to be blessed by being protected from the Egyptians. They cared more for the Egyptians’ blood than the salvation of the people of God. So, they lost their deliverer. Moses was led by God to apprentice in the priesthood under the priest of Midian, Jethro, a Melchizzadekel Priest (Exodus 3:1). He received from the land of this other priesthood, new water, a bride, training in shepherding, and the voice of God in the form of a new calling, all necessary requirements for being an effective priest.



Presence and Promise



The emphases of presence and promise occur just as they did with the Abrahamic covenant. With reference to promise, the promise is reiterated to Moses at his call. Like Abraham, he is called outside the land to lead the people back to the land. In the same way Abimelech, King of Egypt, was nearly cursed for cursing Abraham, the Pharaoh is destroyed for cursing Israel. As God’s promise says, “I will curse those who curse you and bless those who bless you” (Genesis 12:3).

The promise is confirmed with God’s special presence, which is specially manifested to Moses on Mount Sinai with glory. Before the great leader can initiate the exodus, the Lord reveals Himself. Moses’ face shines from His glory, a word which begins to appear quite often in the Mosaic period. The dramatic appearance of the glory of the Lord is distinctively Mosaic in emphasis.

Hierarchy: A New Kingdom (Exodus 6-18)

Moses was called to lead Israel out of Egypt, Goshen the old garden, while fighting a battle to establish God’s kingdom. What he did was hierarchical in nature. He fought a battle over worship. All he wanted from Pharaoh was to go into the desert and worship God. For this request, he drew antagonism from Pharaoh, who would allow a pluralistic society that tolerated the worship of any god except the true God, explaining why one man has called pluralism, “equal time for Satan.” Consequently, Moses defeated all the gods of Egypt by means of the plagues. He did not leave, however, until he and his new kingdom received food for the journey, the Passover. He learned one of the fundamental lessons of kingdom building: it can’t be done on an empty stomach; food must be provided for the long walk ahead, one of the fundamental lessons of spiritual food in the Word and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, both of which are necessary for the journey during the week. Finally, Moses was asked to leave the kingdom of darkness and he was financed to build the new kingdom.

Moses continued his establishment of a new kingdom by separating the waters of blood, the Red Sea (Exodus 14, a symbolic birth which involves the breaking of water and the shedding of blood. He separated the waters to walk on dry land just as God had separated the waters on the second day of creation to raise up dry land, a kingdom. Moses was still only just beginning. He faced the countless problems of the people of Israel. He learned that he could not run the new kingdom by the old system. He was given counsel by Jethro, his old master discipler (Exodus 18). Eventually, he arrives at Sinai where he hears the voice of God.

 
Continued.

Ethical Stipulations: The Law (Exodus 19-23)

The terms of faithfulness, the Law of God, are given to Moses. They are written at a time of the giving of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost (Exodus 19:1). Exodus 19:1 tells us that Israel arrived “on the third new moon” (literally) from the month they left Egypt. They had departed on the 15th-day of the first month, so that they arrived at Sinai at the beginning of the seventh week, almost 50 days after 15th. On the 4th day after arriving Moses told the people to prepare to receive what God would provide 2 days later, the 6th day (Exodus 19:2-6). Thus, a careful study of the chronology of the Exodus shows us that the Law was given at the time when the Spirit would later be given in fullness. Can the point be any more obvious? Law and Spirit should not be held in conflict. Law is always to be based on grace and redemption, apparent from a simple overview of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant.

The Ten Commandments are a manifesto of freedom. They teach what the Apostle Paul says about freedom through obedience to Christ or slavery to sin through disobedience (Romans 6). Freedom is not the freedom to disobey or do anything that one wants, as the pagans believe. Freedom is the freedom to obey God, as our forefathers came to this land to do. So the first commandment, and all the commandments for that matter, are based on redemption from the land of Egypt (Exodus 20:2-3). Israel was freed from the tyranny of the political polytheism of Egypt. They were enslaved by the pluralistic false gods of Pharaoh. The first commandment is true freedom of religion, the belief in The, One true God.

The second commandment is freedom to worship God without superstition (20:4-6), perhaps the greatest slavery of all. Superstition is belief that God indwells nature and can be manipulated by man.

The third commandment is freedom to speak for God not against Him (20:7). This commandment delivers man from the slavery of profanity and narrow vocabulary.

The fourth commandment guarantees the freedom from too much work as well as the freedom to work (20:8-11).

The fifth commandment calls for obedience to parents and promises freedom of inheritance (20:12). Only free societies that obey God’s authorities are not taxed on inheritance. This society did not even have an Income Tax law until the beginning of the century.

The sixth commandment protects freedom from hate, if covenant man does not murder, the correct translation of the Hebrew (20:13). This commandment is the context of Jesus’ statement about hate being the same as murdering your brother (Matthew 5).

The seventh commandment calls for obedience in marriage (20:14), creating freedom from lust on the basis of what Jesus says when He equates lust and adultery (Matthew 5).

The eighth commandment tells man to work and gives him the freedom to earn money (20:15).

The ninth commandment protects the witness stand by commanding truth to guard man from the tyranny of lies (20:16).

The tenth commandment orders man to be content by not coveting or envying (20:17). This is the freedom from dissatisfaction.

After the giving of the Ten Commandments, these laws are applied to the civil realm through case laws, which is not the same as precedent law. Case law is based on an absolute standard, the Ten commandments.

In Leviticus, God records what He also gave while Israel was gathered at Mt. Sinai. These seventy laws have to do with boundary and blood (sacrifices), peculiarly symbolized through the rite of circumcision, an act of creating a physical boundary between Jew and Gentile by the shedding of blood on the man’s body; this explains why these laws were no longer required when the sign of the covenant was changed to baptism. The ceremonial laws call for clean and unclean laws that were to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles. These boundary laws ‘relating to food and other practices (mostly relating to shedding of blood) all find their origin the curses of Genesis 3. For example, anything having to do with the dust of the ground, which was cursed by God, is unclean. Anything conveying the image of death, such as the shedding of blood at birth and the menstrual cycle of the woman, was unclean because death came through sin. Thus, all of these ceremonial laws were pedagogical in nature, designed to re-enforce the teachings of holiness.

Oath: Ratification at Sinai (Exodus 24 and Numbers)

The covenant was actually entered by confession of faith, clarifying why the historic Christian Faith has been written down in creeds that are said at worship to renew the initial covenant. The covenant entrance also involved the sprinkling of blood from sacrifices offered, because blood from above symbolized salvation by grace (literally from above) and not from works. This is why the historic method of baptism is by sprinkling since the water symbolizes Christ’s work from above (cf. Acts 1:5 with 2:3). Interestingly, the original Greek for Jesus’ command to Nicodemus to be born again is literally born from above, which of course is the same as a second birth in contrast to the first birth from below.

After the ratification ceremony, a blueprint for the tabernacle is given (25-31). The place of worship is to be primarily a place of covenant renewal. This tabernacle is a replica of the Glory Cloud in heaven where God dwells and is also duplicated on the priests clothing. It is ordered space around the throne of God, reminding the people of God what their worship is supposed to reproduce.

Following the blueprint for worship, Israel apostatizes and ironically enters into idolatry. While God literally drew up the plans for the new building, the people of God broke the covenant. Sanctions occur in a New Covenant way. The people are made to drink (ingest) the covenant (Exodus 32:20), after the waters have been sprinkled with the covenant: eating follows sprinkling. Probably, this ingestion was a form of the ordeal of jealousy required of a woman suspected of adultey (Numbers 5). As a result, however, thousands of Israelites were slain by the Levites, analogous to the death brought by the unworthy eating of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11).

After this period of covenant judgment, the people are given the law again, including the completion of the blueprints for the tabernacle.

Wandering and Rejection (Numbers)

Israel will not obey the covenant stipulations and enter the land. Judgment must occur in the form of death. The people of the first generation die, because of their rebellion. They are tested with a series of conflicts and disputes, always the preparation for greater victories. But their death is not enough. The mediator of the covenant, Moses, must die before entering the Promised Land. The old must pass away before the new can come.

Moses faces rejection more than any other individual prior to him. This is one of the great tests of one’s oath before God. Moses faced rebellion over eleven times. He did quite well during these insurrections. He even interceded a number of times to prevent God’s wrath. But in the end, he succumbed to the temptation to destroy Israel. He became angry and was not permitted to enter the Promised Land.

Succession: Deuteronomy

Shortly before Moses’ death, he appointed an heir through the laying on of hands, communed with the hair, and gave final discourses just as Jesus did all of the same before His death: the delivery of His Upper Room sermons before He died. Specifically, however, the succession of the Mosaic covenant introduces three major successional ideas that are latent prior to this.

Moses charges Joshua to possess the land, what amounts to a “license to kill.” The successor is the one who will go. Only Caleb and Joshua were ready to take what belonged to God. Only these two of the original twelve were allowed to enter. And, only Joshua is selected to be the actual successor. This commissioning concept is quite dramatic in the Mosaic covenant. The patriarchs had similarly commissioned. In fact, Moses places curses and blessings on the sons of Jacob just as Jacob himself had done. But Moses goes further. No other had been so bold as to say to Joshua exactly what Moses did.

A second successional theme that appears in the Mosaic covenant is rest. ‘Wound up with this notion of the promised land, ideally occupied, is, as we well know from the Book of Deuteronomy, the biblical concept of rest.”sThe idea seems to be that entrance into the Promised Land brings rest. The one who finds rest is the one who inherits and becomes the heir.

Finally, the Book of Deuteronomy repeats the Abrahamic promises. The last chapter of Deuteronomy reports the last comment made by Moses, “This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying,‘1 will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither’” (Deuteronomy 34:4). The point being made to Joshua and all future readers is that just before succession, the promise is repeated! This repetition of promises becomes one of the Mosaic features of issuing a statement of succession. The heir is repeatedly told the promises so that he might keep them.

In conclusion, the Mosaic covenant has followed the covenant pattern with its own unique distinctive. In our next study, we shall consider how the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the Church.



(1) 1. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in Ancient Oriental Documents and the O. T., An Bib 21 (Rome, 1963).

McCarthy believed the commandments to be part of the covenant at Sinai but he is not convinced that law is an element of the treaty formula. Thus, he can speak of the establishment of a covenant without law, which paves the way for a New Covenant without law. This is utter nonsense as any cursory reading of Christ’s statement, “1 did not coma to abolish the law but to fulfill if” (Matthew 519).

(2) 2. William J. Dumbrell, “The Prospect of Unconditionality,” Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of R.K. Harrison, Ed. Avraham GiIeadi (Grand Rapids Baker, 19SS), pp. 144-145.



(3) Ibid., p. 153.

(4) Idem.

(5) 5. Dumbrell “The concept of Unconditionality.” P. 150

https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/sutton/9201.pdf
 
Cautiously wading in, given that I’m a Presbyterian in a largely Baptist debate.

God’s covenant with Abraham wasn’t with him as a Hebrew or “Terahite” but as a believer. The covenant promises were to his household, and that not just his physical progeny. He was to be a father of many nations, not one. Yes, circumcision was applied to the flesh, the male organ, with the attendant symbolic functions as the world’s Messiah would be a physical descendant of his, but throughout it was primarily a sign and seal of the righteousness imputed through faith - the circumcision of the heart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top