I am thankful to my good brother Camden who has provoked some nice thoughts about the Mosaic Covenant in this post. Also, of recent interest, especially in light of a provocative review by Mark Karlberg in the recent JETS, is this book on the same subject.
I continue to have some reservations, however, about the idea of the republication of the CoW in the Mosaic economy with reference to national Israel and their possession of the land. Especially with reference to Deut. 9. In this passage a few things are very clear to me which at least challenge the republication theory (although I have no doubt in my mind that in at least some respects and in some places the CoW is clearly republished – for instance, in the giving of the ten words; a la Francis Turretin). Perhaps someone who has a greater understanding of the republication theory, with reference to the retention of the land, can explain to me how they handle these things:
1) Deut 9 makes it clear that Israel, as a nation, is given the land not because of what they have done, or who they are, but because of God’s free grace to them.
2) The covenant with Israel with reference to the land, in this chapter, is very closely connected with the Abrahamic covenant. God gives the land to them because of the promise he made to Abraham.
3) But also, the retaining of the land is also by grace. God says when Israel sins – and they will sin – he will remain faithful to his covenant and forgive them of their sins.
4) Yet, as we see later in redemptive history Israel does sin. And they sin so severely that God does remove them from the land. However, this hardly seems a typological picture of eschatological judgment. It looks more like discipline in which God deals with Israel in a corrective way.
This need not break the valid connection there is between Adam, Israel, and Christ – especially with reference to Christ’s obedience, particularly in the wilderness where he clearly obeys exactly where Israel fails. We can say this because, yes, the CoW was operative under Moses. I believe that the CoW is always operative. It binds all men everywhere. I’m just not yet convinced that the land and nation of Israel serve in the way explicated by many proponents of the position. But I am open to being convinced. In fact, I prefer the position because it provides a nice neat theological structure to the covenants and redemptive history. However, I first need to get through Deut. 9. Help, any one?
I’ll take a stab at it.
Perhaps the most important feature of Deuteronomy 9 is the reference back to the covenant made with Abraham (and confirmed with Isaac and Jacob) as the basis for God’s gracious dealings with Israel – NOT the covenant made at Sinai. I’ll try to go point by point through the questions you raise and flesh this out.
1) It is true that they enter Canaan by grace, because it was part of God’s gracious promise to Abraham in Genesis 15. Note well that it is the Lord alone who swears the oath to Abraham there (attested by Deuteronomy 9:5), and ritually illustrated by the smoking oven and flaming torch that pass through the butchered animal halves as if to obligate the Lord to the same curse that befell the animals if He violates his oath. But reception or grant is a different question than tenure.
2) This is exactly the point I made above.
3) I fail to see how you conclude that tenure is maintained by grace as well. When God forgives them, he cites the Abrahamic covenant as the proximate ground for that forgiveness. I cannot see in Deuteronomy 9 where God promises to forgive them forever and ever, amen. I also cannot see where Deuteronomy 9 addresses tenure. I do find Moses addressing the issue of tenure in Deuteronomy 28. There, the Lord tells Israel that the land will “flow with milk and honey” as the effect of their obedience to the Law and that the land will not only shrivel up and die as the effect of their disobedience to the Law, but they will be killed and enslaved by their enemies.
4) In light of Deuteronomy 28 (and Leviticus 26), I don’t understand why God’s just execution of the curse sanctions in light of Israels subsequent sin doesn’t look like typological judgment. Death and captivity seem pretty good pictures of Hell to me.
Think about the theological and practical results of denying the republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant. If Sinai is essentially gracious (like the Abrahamic and the New), then how do I understand my life as fitting into Deuteronomy 9? Should I treat unbelievers Romans 5:10ly or Joshua 6:20-26ly? If the principle of grace is the same at Sinai as it is at Calvary, how do you know which way to advise me?
Aside from that though, why did Paul say that Christ was born under the Law (which I take as shorthand for “the Mosaic covenant”)? In that context of Galatians 4:4, why not say that Christ was born under the Promise (i.e., the Abrahamic covenant)? Was it not because as the Last Adam, he must be born into the same covenantal situation in which the first Adam found himself? In the time and space here, I can’t unpack this as much as I would like, but I encourage you to study the Greek word “parabasis” as it is used in the NT. It only occurs 7 times; Romans 4:15 provides a handy definition and Romans 5:13 and 14 prove most fascinating. While you will find “parabasis” attributed to either Adam or Moses (but no one else like Abraham, Noah, etc.), the bottom line is that “parabasis” means “a personal violation of commandments which functioned as the stipulations of a works arrangement in which personal works operate as the meritorious ground of the reception of the covenant sanctions.”
Also, Meredith Kline points out on page 266 of Kingdom Prologue that after the flood-judgment, God curses (not coincidentally) Canaan, whose name means “subdue.” That curse is not consonant with grace, is it? And surely we can see judgment in the total picture of the flood event.
I also wanted to comment on your claim that “the CoW is always operative. It binds all men everywhere.” To what would you appeal exegetically to prove this? I would say that the CoW is decisively broken on behalf of all humanity thanks to our first federal head, Adam. That fact condemns all men everywhere. But in or after Genesis 3, I see no reinstatement of the CoW such that we are all little Adams, each personally responsible to merit eternal life or demerit eternal death.
Chris,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Let me explicate more on the idea of the universal aspect of the CoW. I see the CoW as a Law/Legal covenant. The commandment God gives to Adam is a brief summary of God’s law in which the ten commandments are “consolidated.” If that is the case, then God’s Law and the stipulations for breaking it must continue to be in effect. In addition, the idea of obedience to the CoW must also be in effect after Genesis 3 because Christ fulfills it! I agree, he was born under the Law and under the CoW. The requirements of God’s perfect law continue even today to bind us and our consciences. Is not the second use of the Law still in effect?
Your continued thoughts would be appreciated.
PS – Your point about Deut 9 is well taken and I believe we are agreed here.
Hi Jim,
I understand what you’re saying about the CoW, but forgive me for thinking that it might be begging the question regarding exegetical evidence. As I read Genesis 3, God was not strolling along in the “cool/wind” of the day but storming into His courtroom as the ruach hayom. Sentence was pronounced. Granted, there was a stay of execution, but that’s where the covenant of common grace began. The exegetical evidence, as I read it, is that when the Almighty Judge pronounces the sentence, it is over and done with. Genesis 3:15 seems strange if that original CoW at creation is still in effect. Instead of Genesis 3:15, why not just tell Adam that he has a second chance form himself and us?
Theologically, that is one of the most important reasons (in my opinion) for understanding the “top” strata of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the CoW. Exegetically, I don’t see how there is any way around it when reading Paul’s interpretation of the Mosaic covenant. Obviously, there was more to the Mosaic covenant than Law. The sacrificial system seems to have much more in common with the gracious character of the Abrahamic covenant than Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. I think Steve Baugh’s analysis of Galatians 3:20 in WTJ is helpful when he says that by using the term “Law” Paul strains out the CoW from the total Mosaic economy (hence his association of Leviticus 18:5 with the Law, etc.).
I agree with the validity of the second use of the Law, but how does that prove that the covenant of works at creation is still operative? As the cure for self-righteousness, the second use seems to presuppose the verdict of condemnation that God issued in Genesis 3, thus settling the case.
Part of what distinguishes a CoW from the CoG is who swears the oath. Granted, we don’t have a record of Adam swearing an oath, but other prominent features of a works arrangement are clearly present. Where else in history do we have people swearing to keep God’s Law such that their obedience will be rewarded with a blessing and their disobedience will be recompensed with a curse? I don’t know anyone who has sworn such an oath (I certainly haven’t). We DO find Israel swearing such an oath (yet with typological, not eschatological sanctions) in Exodus 19:7-8. I think we see something like a reaffirmation of such an oath on our Lord’s part in Matthew 26.
That brings me back to Deuteronomy 9, because it was God who swore the oath in the Abrahamic covenant (God can’t lie, therefore the blessings of the covenant will be realized), and the Lord refers back to that oath of the CoG. That is why he will forgive them – not because of the CoW to which Israel obligated herself in Exodus 19:7-8. In other words, the “lower” strata of the Mosaic covenant is in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant and is the basis for God’s forgiveness to Israel. So if we’re in agreement on this, why does Deuteronomy 9 hinder you from seeing a typological republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant?
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your continual interaction on this. Just for clarification, I do affirm that in some sense the CoW is republished in the Mosaic administration. Where I had my hesitation was with reference to seeing the retaining of the land as a manifestation of that republication because of Deut 9. But your argument is convincing that Deut 9 refers to the attaining, not the retaining, of the land.
As to the continual abiding nature of the CoW, I wonder how you would answer the issue of the standard by which unbelievers will be judged on the last day. Its interesting that in Revelation 20 you have the two sets of books – the book of judgment which judges each who are not in the other book according to their works – whether good or evil. The other book is called a book of life. These two books mirror the two trees in the garden – the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and the tree of life. The tree of life has the names of those who are the Lamb’s bride not because of anything they did, but because of God’s unconditional inscription of their names. The others, however, not in the book of life are judged according to their works. Don’t you see, everyone not in the book of life are judged by the standard of the original covenant with man. And everyman, in the first Adam, are guilty of breaking the covenant of works. You have to affirm that, and you can not say the CoW is ever abrogated otherwise you do away with the gospel itself.
Hi Jim.
Hope you are doing well. Love the podcasts. One thing that led me to believe in the typological republication of the covenant of works is that the whole work of Christ is typologically portrayed in the old covenant; not just our Lord’s passive obedience, but also his active obedience. This means the law covenant must be typed in there somewhere. Where? Paul points to typological book of Lev. (18:5), which then must condition the way we understand the old covenant at least on an inferential level to start with.
-brnt
Hi Brett,
Thanks for this, I agree completely. For me Paul’s use of Lev. 18:5 was what drove me to a similar position. So, to sum, I believe that the OC and MA must in someway serve typologically as a republication of the CoW. In my original post I only ask the question “in which respect”. Certainly, not all of the MA nor OC are a repub of the CoW (because of the way in which D. 9 is overwhelmingly gracious).
So, this is where I am at this point: The OC is – on a lower register – fundamentally gracious and a part of the CoG. However, the CoW remains a binding force in the upper register. From that register it occasionally intrudes into the lower register and typifies the way in which Christ, as second Adam, fulfills the CoW. This is the Janus effect of said intrusion – it looks both back to the original CoW to the first Adam, and at the same time looks forward to the fulfillment of the CoW in the second Adam by way of both his active and passive obedience.
Does that make sense? Am I way off? Or, just partially?
Hi Jim,
I’m going to jump in and supplement Chris’ #4 in his first post (concerning exile). It seems clear to me that Israel’s exile from the holy land is parallel to mankind’s exile from Eden (holy land). God demands that righteousness dwell in heaven. Both Eden and Canaan were types of heaven; therefore, they must be cast out. It is only through Christ’s active obedience and death (circumcision of Christ), that we can pass the cherubim into the consummate holy land (heaven) which Eden and Canaan prophetically foreshadowed. It seems that life and death are both typological in the Mosaic covenant. Life refers living in the land and death to being cast out. Ezekiel 37:11-14,24-28 seems to give great support to this.
Just to get your thoughts concerning the republication in the Decalogue alone… I hear it frequently but don’t understand it. Where do you find biblical support for the notion that we can remove the Decalogue from the Mosaic covenant, finding the CoW in it but not the covenant as a whole? The Decalogue is referred to as the words of the covenant in Exo. 34:28 & Deut. 4:13. It’s not merely a component of the covenant.
Would love to get your thoughts!
Hi Zac,
Thank you for your thoughtful post!
I agree with all you say. Well, except the part about the republication of the CoW in the decalogue alone and the removal of the dec. from the MC in general. I never said that! I never said it, I know, because I don’t believe that!
What I said was that I believe the CoW serves on an upper register which occasionally intrudes into redemptive history manifesting the fact that the Law of God is still binding on man, thus leading them – in a typological fashion – to the Christ to come who will fulfill it in both his active and passive obedience.
We see the CoW intrude at places like the decalogue, but not there alone. We see it at times when God – as you said – makes Israel’s obedience a condition from tenure in the land (a la Deut 30). We also see it in places like Saul’s death where we are told that God executed the divine justice on him for his sinfulness (1 Chron. 10:13-14). All these intrusions have a Janus effect – they look in two directions at once and the same time. Namely they look repectively to the original CoW in the garden and prospectively (or eschatologically) to a second garden in which the second Adam obeys the will of God (Mark 14:36) where the first Adam in the first garden disobyed.
Does that makes sense?
Jim,
My apologies for totally misreading you. I looked back through the posts and cannot figure out where I got that from. Perhaps, it comes from reading way too many blog posts and comments in a single day
What you said concerning intrusions makes sense. I also agree that there are gracious elements within the Mosaic economy. I guess I view the Mosaic covenant (MC) as a sort of lower register ectype of the upper register CoW (archetype). For the MC to serve its purpose, it could not perfectly match the upper register archetype, but it must resemble it. Therefore, both are covenants of works/law, but the MC has a sacrificial system that cleanses unintentional sins and there are unilateral promises made to Abraham that were still awaiting fulfillment.
Thanks for all your thoughts on this. It gives me a lot to chew on.
Hi Jim,
I’ve was on vacation last week, but I will be responding to your points about the continual, abiding nature of the CoW soon.
What happened to the comments?
Chris
We're doing a test with the Disqus commenting system. We imported all our comments, but it appears something went wrong. If I can't fix it, we'll shut it off and go back to what we had.