Sinaitic Covenant, is it re-administration of Adamic, in the sense that it identifies the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Adamic covenant of works, not in order that Israel might achieve salvation thereby (which is impossible for fallen man), but for the pedogogical purpose of leading Israel to Christ, as Paul argues in Gal. 3:19-25? or should we see it as an administration of the Cov. grace for the purpose of progressive sanctification?.
I'm with John Owen on this one:-
In John Owen's magisterial seven volume commentary on Hebrews we see a significant new development in covenant theology - the application of the works-principle in the Mosaic economy to the typological, temporal level of Israel's retention of the land.
Commenting on Hebrews 8:6, which speaks of "a better covenant enacted on better promises," Owen explains in what sense the New Covenant is better than the Old. In so doing, he affirms that "the covenant on Sinai" contained "a revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse" (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 6, p. 80). The purpose of this was "to shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the covenant of works, and curse attending it" (p. 81).
However, the Mosaic Covenant "did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation," since these soteric blessings could only be attained by Christ alone, and by faith in him (p. 82). Although the Mosaic Covenant was a "renovation" (p. 91) of the "the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works," and thus became, as Paul teaches, "a ministry of condemnation" (pp. 85, 92), yet no one was saved or condemned by virtue of it. "Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works" (pp. 85-86).
To what, then, did the republished covenant of works apply? "As unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal" (p. 85). "Having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan ... he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy the land" (p. 83). In other words, the covenant of works aspect of the Mosaic Covenant only operated on the temporal level of Israel's retention of the land, not on the antitypical level of eternal salvation or damnation.
and Kline......
The Sinaitic administration ... Paul interpreted as in itself a dispensation of the kingdom inheritance quite opposite in principle to inheritance by guaranteed promise: "For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise" and "the law is not of faith; but, he that doeth them shall live in them" ... The unquestionable fact emerges in Galatians 3 that Paul saw in the Old Testament alongside the covenant of promise another covenant which was so far from being an administration of promise as to raise the urgent question whether it did not abrogate the promise (Kline, By Oath Consigned, pp. 22-24).
Or would you disagree and agree with John Murray
The view that in the Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of works, current among covenant theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant (Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 50).
I haven't heard much discussion on this topic so I'm looking forward to reading the replies.
VanVos
I'm with John Owen on this one:-
In John Owen's magisterial seven volume commentary on Hebrews we see a significant new development in covenant theology - the application of the works-principle in the Mosaic economy to the typological, temporal level of Israel's retention of the land.
Commenting on Hebrews 8:6, which speaks of "a better covenant enacted on better promises," Owen explains in what sense the New Covenant is better than the Old. In so doing, he affirms that "the covenant on Sinai" contained "a revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse" (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 6, p. 80). The purpose of this was "to shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the covenant of works, and curse attending it" (p. 81).
However, the Mosaic Covenant "did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation," since these soteric blessings could only be attained by Christ alone, and by faith in him (p. 82). Although the Mosaic Covenant was a "renovation" (p. 91) of the "the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works," and thus became, as Paul teaches, "a ministry of condemnation" (pp. 85, 92), yet no one was saved or condemned by virtue of it. "Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works" (pp. 85-86).
To what, then, did the republished covenant of works apply? "As unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal" (p. 85). "Having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan ... he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy the land" (p. 83). In other words, the covenant of works aspect of the Mosaic Covenant only operated on the temporal level of Israel's retention of the land, not on the antitypical level of eternal salvation or damnation.
and Kline......
The Sinaitic administration ... Paul interpreted as in itself a dispensation of the kingdom inheritance quite opposite in principle to inheritance by guaranteed promise: "For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise" and "the law is not of faith; but, he that doeth them shall live in them" ... The unquestionable fact emerges in Galatians 3 that Paul saw in the Old Testament alongside the covenant of promise another covenant which was so far from being an administration of promise as to raise the urgent question whether it did not abrogate the promise (Kline, By Oath Consigned, pp. 22-24).
Or would you disagree and agree with John Murray
The view that in the Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of works, current among covenant theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant (Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 50).
I haven't heard much discussion on this topic so I'm looking forward to reading the replies.
VanVos