@@jgeph2.4 but I do find the writer of Hebrews speaking in this way about the Law of Moses This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (Hebrews 7:22, ESV)
Brother this is a word concept fallacy. For example, just because we don't see the word "Trinity" doesn't mean that Scripture doesn't teach the concept. The same goes for the Covenant of Grace
So I have wrestled some with this question myself, here is at least how I have thought through it… 1) As others have pointed out, there are biblical doctrines we hold to that are not explicitly taught in scripture AS SUCH as we name them - the Trinity of course being the easiest to allude to but others being penal substitution, the hypostatic union, the impeccability of Christ, cessation of the sign gifts (if you subscribe to that) etc. The point being, just because the NAMES we give these doctrines does not show up in scripture does not mean that the CONCEPTS are not taught in scripture by virtue of tota scriptura and good and necessary consequence. We have to have a category for such things to be serious students of the word and that is not just a matter of being slippery and playing fast and loose with scripture. 2) With that said, I believe that we have to ask some questions of things that we see God doing in scripture as we get an eagle eye view of the redemptive story as a whole, and based on the answers to those questions we may safely construct a doctrinal way of articulating what we see, for example: - We see God communicating with Adam in such a way that is paradigmatic of covenants in scripture with ONLY the name “covenant” not being technically stated in the text (Preamble of history - Creation, Identity of the parties - God and Man, Duties - Be fruitful & multiply, Sanctions - Do not eat of the tree, Blessing - God blessed them, Curses - Death). - Then we see that after Adam breached the covenant, God does NOT kill Adam but INSTEAD clothes him with the hide of something else and requires sacrifices of the first family and consistently deals with them graciously - all of this within the context of promising them that one of their descendants will come and crush the serpent and reverse the affects of the curse. All the subsequent “explicit” covenants are tied to that promise, they are PREDICATED on that promise, making them interconnected with each other (the Abrahamic is connected to the Mosaic which is connected to the Davidic which is connected to the New and ALL of them have their basis in the one gracious promise of the coming Seed). 3) With both of those points being stated, I would argue thus far that we have real biblical precedent for seeing God engage in a covenant with Adam and subsequent to his breach of it, doing “something” different with him and his posterity based on a future promise of a coming One that will have global implications and CONSEQUENTLY establishing explicit covenants based on the ONE promise. 4) Finally, the texts that I think lend support to this understanding would be -Ephesians 1 in which we see God establishing AN “administration” before the foundation of the world which is based on the blood of Christ as well as based on His “kind intention” to the praise of the glory of His grace. - John 17 speaks of Jesus as having a relationship with the Father before the world was and Him giving the Son work to do and being sent from Heaven to do it. - Isaiah 49 speaks of God’s intention of His Servant not only redeeming Israel but causing His salvation to reach the whole world. - Upon completing this work, the Son is promised the reward of glory, exaltation, an inheritance of nations, and ultimately all things to be summed up in Him. These texts suggest that God engaged in a relationship with the Son that was also covenantal in nature that WE have labeled “the covenant of redemption.” 5) Lastly, that covenant of redemption was being accomplished in the world by means of what WE are labeling the concept of “the covenant of grace” - one covenant of dealing with Man in such a way as to communicate redemption to Him in differing administrations that unfold progressively in history (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic & New) but all being based on the original shift in God dealing with Adam after he breached that first covenant (sometimes called the covenant of works, sometimes called the covenant of life) and that promise He made to Adam. At least one text we can see the interrelationship between the historical covenants is in Hebrews 9:23 where we see that the sacrifices previously made were “copies” of heavenly things. Copies inherently denotes an organic relationship to the original, which suggests a unity. So, while it is true that the covenants of reformed jargon are not explicitly taught in scripture AS SUCH, they manifestly convey truths in scripture that we see if we are faithful to tota scriptura and we have taken the liberty of naming these concepts in just the same way that we do with the other doctrines mentioned in the first point. Is that helpful?
Thanks for your thoughts Jared. However, most of it seemed to simply assume what you're trying to prove. 1) Yes, if Mosaic was sub-salvific then Israel was a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, and a peculiar treasure in a sub-salvific (typological sense). I don't see an argument against this conclusion. -- 2) Note what the text you quoted says: brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (typological, sub-salvific). Note what it doesn't say: delivered you from the domain of darkness (Col 1:13), set you free from sin (Rom 6:22). See Edwards on the typical nature of Israel and the Old Covenant "[W]ith regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people." contrast2.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/jonathan-edwards-on-the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/ -- 3. The command to worship God alone entails a promise of salvation? Really? Was that true before the fall when the same law as given to Adam? God commands all men to worship him alone. Does that mean everyone’s in the covenant of grace? - 4. Correct, the Mosaic covenant was not the Adamic Covenant of Works. It was separate from it, just as it is separate from the New Covenant of Grace. - 5. Correct. The Mosaic is a continuation of/addendum to the Abrahamic, stating the condition of Abe’s offspring’s inheritance of the land. This is what particular baptists have noted for a long time. Neither the Abrahamic nor the Mosaic are the CoG. - 6. God divorced Israel for their disobedience, exiling them from the (sub-salvific) land (Deut 24:1; Hos 1:4-9; Is 50:1; Jer 3:6-8; 31:32; Heb 8:9) and said He would make a new covenant on different terms that they could not break. Note Edwards and Owen. "That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant." contrast2.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/jonathan-edwards-on-the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/ "’I exercised the right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:’ that is, saith the apostle, ‘“ I regarded them not” with the love, tenderness, and affection of a husband.’... So did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a representation of the nature of the covenant of works... On this declaration, God promiseth to make another covenant with them, wherein all these evils should be prevented. This is the covenant which the apostle designs to prove better and more excellent than the former" (Owen Exposition of Hebrews 8:9) - 7. "it is foolish to speak of law as opposed to faith.” You might want to reword that. “The law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12) Saving faith wasn't an instrument of the Old. "by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39)
@brandonadams07 you shouldn’t take verses out of context. 7. “The law is not of faith.” Elsewhere, Paul says, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:12, 14, 25 How can I serve a spiritual, holy, and just law if I don’t have faith? The law is certainly of faith. The context of Galatians 3 is trying to be justified by the law rather than faith.
@@jaylonbachman Brother, I'm not seeing where I took anything out of context. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Jared was addressing the role of the law in the Mosaic covenant. Paul was likewise addressing the role of the law in the Mosaic covenant (compared to the role of the law in the New covenant). Inheritance in the Mosaic covenant was through obedience to the law (Lev 18:5), whereas inheritance in the New covenant is through faith. I affirm Romans 7:12, 14, 25 (as well as 2LBC 19.5-7).
@@fe8199 ... and Hebrews 8:6-13. The Old Covenant was for national Israel, no Gentiles. Paul said in Gal 3 that the law came in 430 years after Abe and only lasted until the Seed came, who is Jesus. When the veil was torn in two and Jesus cried out "It Is finished", the OC was over. All those born of the Spirit are in the New Covenant. All others are "in Adam", without Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Very thoughtful topic. You say at the very end of this video that God's Covenant with Israel is a Covenant of Grace, albeit with shortcomings. So, God made an inadequate Covenant? I'm having real issues with any concept of God making anything imperfectly. Please expand, and many thanks.
Most theologians would say that the original creation was “good” but not exactly “perfect”, since the new creation is a return to a perfected garden of Eden. Hope that helps!
Note that Doug Wilson says the Mosaic Covenant "could not save at all." "[T]he New Covenant is powerful to save throughout all time, including the time of the Levitical administration (Heb 9:15; Jn. 8:58; Heb 7:3)… The author of Hebrews tells us this: “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). In other words, the New Covenant is effective in the salvation of the Old Testament saints… The Levitical administration could not save retroactively; in fact, it could not save at all. It could only look forward in anticipation. The Christ of the New Covenant was savingly effective in the lives of Abraham, Samuel, David, and countless others. The second covenant not only saves those under the second covenant, it saves believers under the first covenant." -Doug Wilson, To a Thousand Generations, 29-30
Gal. 3 clearly distinguishes the law [Mosaic covenant] from the Abrahamic promises. The Abrahamic promises were unconditional, but the Mosaic was conditional. That is the clear import there. The grace we see in the Mosaic is not because the Mosaic in itself is able to give grace. 2 Cor. 3 makes it clear that it can only bring death. Also, the NT explicitly tells us that the law is not of faith. All that speaks of or foreshadows grace in the Mosaic covenant is merely pointing to the new covenant. So brother, this is, as far as I can tell, just confusing people.
Mostly agree, except for the idea that Gal 3 is distinguishing the Abrahamic Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant (the law) was an addendum to the first Abrahamic promise (numerous offspring who would inherit Canaan) elaborating upon the condition for receiving that inheritance (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; 9:23; Lev 26:15, 40-42; Jer 11:5). It's why the first generation didn't enter and it's why Israel was eventually exiled. Rather, Gal 3 is distinguishing between the two different Abrahamic promises. The first was made to/concerning Abraham's numerous carnal offspring. The second promise (Gal 3:8) was made to/concerning one particular offspring, Jesus the Christ (Gal 3:16). The Judaizers conflated these two promises. Paul distinguishes them. The Judaizers were correct that to receive the first inheritance one must be a circumcised offspring of Abraham according to the flesh. But they were wrong to conclude that is true of the second inheritance. That is through faith alone in union with Christ, by which one becomes an offspring of Abraham according to the Spirit.
Whoever takes the oath in a covenant ratifies that covenant. When GOD DOES IT it’s ONLY PROMISE/BLESSING Covenant of Grace = ONLY Blessings. Covenant of Works = Dual Sanctions, blessings & curses.
Very helpful Jared, thank you!
Please point us to the passage[s] which tell us about this 'Covenant of Grace'. I have been unable to find any mention of such a covenant in my Bible.
Chapter 7 of the WCF with scripture proofs
@@jgeph2.4 except the Scripture proofs don't prove anything
@@jgeph2.4 but I do find the writer of Hebrews speaking in this way about the Law of Moses
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. (Hebrews 7:22, ESV)
Brother this is a word concept fallacy. For example, just because we don't see the word "Trinity" doesn't mean that Scripture doesn't teach the concept. The same goes for the Covenant of Grace
So I have wrestled some with this question myself, here is at least how I have thought through it…
1) As others have pointed out, there are biblical doctrines we hold to that are not explicitly taught in scripture AS SUCH as we name them - the Trinity of course being the easiest to allude to but others being penal substitution, the hypostatic union, the impeccability of Christ, cessation of the sign gifts (if you subscribe to that) etc.
The point being, just because the NAMES we give these doctrines does not show up in scripture does not mean that the CONCEPTS are not taught in scripture by virtue of tota scriptura and good and necessary consequence. We have to have a category for such things to be serious students of the word and that is not just a matter of being slippery and playing fast and loose with scripture.
2) With that said, I believe that we have to ask some questions of things that we see God doing in scripture as we get an eagle eye view of the redemptive story as a whole, and based on the answers to those questions we may safely construct a doctrinal way of articulating what we see, for example:
- We see God communicating with Adam in such a way that is paradigmatic of covenants in scripture with ONLY the name “covenant” not being technically stated in the text (Preamble of history - Creation, Identity of the parties - God and Man, Duties - Be fruitful & multiply, Sanctions - Do not eat of the tree, Blessing - God blessed them, Curses - Death).
- Then we see that after Adam breached the covenant, God does NOT kill Adam but INSTEAD clothes him with the hide of something else and requires sacrifices of the first family and consistently deals with them graciously - all of this within the context of promising them that one of their descendants will come and crush the serpent and reverse the affects of the curse. All the subsequent “explicit” covenants are tied to that promise, they are PREDICATED on that promise, making them interconnected with each other (the Abrahamic is connected to the Mosaic which is connected to the Davidic which is connected to the New and ALL of them have their basis in the one gracious promise of the coming Seed).
3) With both of those points being stated, I would argue thus far that we have real biblical precedent for seeing God engage in a covenant with Adam and subsequent to his breach of it, doing “something” different with him and his posterity based on a future promise of a coming One that will have global implications and CONSEQUENTLY establishing explicit covenants based on the ONE promise.
4) Finally, the texts that I think lend support to this understanding would be
-Ephesians 1 in which we see God establishing AN “administration” before the foundation of the world which is based on the blood of Christ as well as based on His “kind intention” to the praise of the glory of His grace.
- John 17 speaks of Jesus as having a relationship with the Father before the world was and Him giving the Son work to do and being sent from Heaven to do it.
- Isaiah 49 speaks of God’s intention of His Servant not only redeeming Israel but causing His salvation to reach the whole world.
- Upon completing this work, the Son is promised the reward of glory, exaltation, an inheritance of nations, and ultimately all things to be summed up in Him.
These texts suggest that God engaged in a relationship with the Son that was also covenantal in nature that WE have labeled “the covenant of redemption.”
5) Lastly, that covenant of redemption was being accomplished in the world by means of what WE are labeling the concept of “the covenant of grace” - one covenant of dealing with Man in such a way as to communicate redemption to Him in differing administrations that unfold progressively in history (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic & New) but all being based on the original shift in God dealing with Adam after he breached that first covenant (sometimes called the covenant of works, sometimes called the covenant of life) and that promise He made to Adam.
At least one text we can see the interrelationship between the historical covenants is in Hebrews 9:23 where we see that the sacrifices previously made were “copies” of heavenly things. Copies inherently denotes an organic relationship to the original, which suggests a unity.
So, while it is true that the covenants of reformed jargon are not explicitly taught in scripture AS SUCH, they manifestly convey truths in scripture that we see if we are faithful to tota scriptura and we have taken the liberty of naming these concepts in just the same way that we do with the other doctrines mentioned in the first point.
Is that helpful?
Misread the title. I thought it read why it is NOT the covenant of grace. That almost gave me a heartattack
Thanks for your thoughts Jared. However, most of it seemed to simply assume what you're trying to prove.
1) Yes, if Mosaic was sub-salvific then Israel was a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, and a peculiar treasure in a sub-salvific (typological sense). I don't see an argument against this conclusion.
--
2) Note what the text you quoted says: brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (typological, sub-salvific).
Note what it doesn't say: delivered you from the domain of darkness (Col 1:13), set you free from sin (Rom 6:22).
See Edwards on the typical nature of Israel and the Old Covenant
"[W]ith regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people."
contrast2.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/jonathan-edwards-on-the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/
--
3. The command to worship God alone entails a promise of salvation? Really? Was that true before the fall when the same law as given to Adam? God commands all men to worship him alone. Does that mean everyone’s in the covenant of grace?
-
4. Correct, the Mosaic covenant was not the Adamic Covenant of Works. It was separate from it, just as it is separate from the New Covenant of Grace.
-
5. Correct. The Mosaic is a continuation of/addendum to the Abrahamic, stating the condition of Abe’s offspring’s inheritance of the land. This is what particular baptists have noted for a long time. Neither the Abrahamic nor the Mosaic are the CoG.
-
6. God divorced Israel for their disobedience, exiling them from the (sub-salvific) land (Deut 24:1; Hos 1:4-9; Is 50:1; Jer 3:6-8; 31:32; Heb 8:9) and said He would make a new covenant on different terms that they could not break. Note Edwards and Owen.
"That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant." contrast2.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/jonathan-edwards-on-the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/
"’I exercised the right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:’ that is, saith the apostle, ‘“ I regarded them not” with the love, tenderness, and affection of a husband.’... So did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a representation of the nature of the covenant of works... On this declaration, God promiseth to make another covenant with them, wherein all these evils should be prevented. This is the covenant which the apostle designs to prove better and more excellent than the former" (Owen Exposition of Hebrews 8:9)
-
7. "it is foolish to speak of law as opposed to faith.” You might want to reword that. “The law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12)
Saving faith wasn't an instrument of the Old. "by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39)
@brandonadams07 you shouldn’t take verses out of context.
7. “The law is not of faith.”
Elsewhere, Paul says, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
Romans 7:12, 14, 25
How can I serve a spiritual, holy, and just law if I don’t have faith? The law is certainly of faith.
The context of Galatians 3 is trying to be justified by the law rather than faith.
@@jaylonbachman Brother, I'm not seeing where I took anything out of context. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Jared was addressing the role of the law in the Mosaic covenant. Paul was likewise addressing the role of the law in the Mosaic covenant (compared to the role of the law in the New covenant). Inheritance in the Mosaic covenant was through obedience to the law (Lev 18:5), whereas inheritance in the New covenant is through faith.
I affirm Romans 7:12, 14, 25 (as well as 2LBC 19.5-7).
So.....exegete 2 Corinthians 3
And maybe John 1:17 for starters.
@mikeyonce2323 I guess let's keep it going....let's throw in Hebrews 7:12
@@fe8199 ... and Hebrews 8:6-13. The Old Covenant was for national Israel, no Gentiles. Paul said in Gal 3 that the law came in 430 years after Abe and only lasted until the Seed came, who is Jesus. When the veil was torn in two and Jesus cried out "It Is finished", the OC was over. All those born of the Spirit are in the New Covenant. All others are "in Adam", without Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
@@fe8199 I'll match you, Gal 3:1-9, and raise you, Heb10:8-14
I'll match you Jeremiah 31:31-34 and raise you Luke 5:36-39
Very thoughtful topic. You say at the very end of this video that God's Covenant with Israel is a Covenant of Grace, albeit with shortcomings. So, God made an inadequate Covenant? I'm having real issues with any concept of God making anything imperfectly. Please expand, and many thanks.
Most theologians would say that the original creation was “good” but not exactly “perfect”, since the new creation is a return to a perfected garden of Eden. Hope that helps!
Note that Doug Wilson says the Mosaic Covenant "could not save at all."
"[T]he New Covenant is powerful to save throughout all time, including the time of the Levitical administration (Heb 9:15; Jn. 8:58; Heb 7:3)… The author of Hebrews tells us this: “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). In other words, the New Covenant is effective in the salvation of the Old Testament saints… The Levitical administration could not save retroactively; in fact, it could not save at all. It could only look forward in anticipation. The Christ of the New Covenant was savingly effective in the lives of Abraham, Samuel, David, and countless others. The second covenant not only saves those under the second covenant, it saves believers under the first covenant."
-Doug Wilson, To a Thousand Generations, 29-30
Gal. 3 clearly distinguishes the law [Mosaic covenant] from the Abrahamic promises. The Abrahamic promises were unconditional, but the Mosaic was conditional. That is the clear import there. The grace we see in the Mosaic is not because the Mosaic in itself is able to give grace. 2 Cor. 3 makes it clear that it can only bring death. Also, the NT explicitly tells us that the law is not of faith. All that speaks of or foreshadows grace in the Mosaic covenant is merely pointing to the new covenant. So brother, this is, as far as I can tell, just confusing people.
Mostly agree, except for the idea that Gal 3 is distinguishing the Abrahamic Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant (the law) was an addendum to the first Abrahamic promise (numerous offspring who would inherit Canaan) elaborating upon the condition for receiving that inheritance (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; 9:23; Lev 26:15, 40-42; Jer 11:5). It's why the first generation didn't enter and it's why Israel was eventually exiled.
Rather, Gal 3 is distinguishing between the two different Abrahamic promises. The first was made to/concerning Abraham's numerous carnal offspring. The second promise (Gal 3:8) was made to/concerning one particular offspring, Jesus the Christ (Gal 3:16). The Judaizers conflated these two promises. Paul distinguishes them. The Judaizers were correct that to receive the first inheritance one must be a circumcised offspring of Abraham according to the flesh. But they were wrong to conclude that is true of the second inheritance. That is through faith alone in union with Christ, by which one becomes an offspring of Abraham according to the Spirit.
Now, everyone, go read John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe.
Thank you Jared, from Sydney, Australia
Whoever takes the oath in a covenant ratifies that covenant. When GOD DOES IT it’s ONLY PROMISE/BLESSING
Covenant of Grace = ONLY Blessings.
Covenant of Works = Dual Sanctions, blessings & curses.
Also, 1689 Federalism holds to the Republication position.
Depends on how one defines it. We do not hold to it as defined by Jared in this video (that the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the Adamic Covenant).