In Part 1, we noted the challenging and complex task of interpreting the role and function of the Mosaic Covenant. The wide spectrum of views suggested a degree of confusion and the need for further clarification.
In Part 2, we identified the heart of the problem. On the one hand, the biblical data seems to argue for the conditional nature of the mosaic covenant. On the other, the necessity of salvation by grace seems to demand a substantially gracious covenant.
In Part 3, we are asking, how can both be true? If the Mosaic Covenant is conditional, if it is a covenant of works, how could anyone living under it be saved?
In answering this question, we will consider three different covenant theologies. Three different approaches that progress from bad, to better, to best.
Approach No. 1 – John Murray.
In 1954 John Murray published a small book called, ‘The Covenant of Grace’. In a conscious move away from, ‘the work of the classic covenant theologians,’ [1] he wrote, ‘It appears to me that… covenant theology… needs recasting’.[2] He wrote of, ‘the need for correction and reconstruction’. [3] In other words, he was proposing a somewhat new and different form of Covenant Theology.
Because of this, some have understandably referred to his and similar views as, ‘twentieth century covenant theology’. These views became popular and arguably represent the most common form of covenant theology in our present day. This is the theological air that many of us have grown up breathing. When the typical dispensationalist asks himself, what is covenant theology? This is often what they have in mind.
But consider this.
Lee Irons states, ‘the viewpoint dominant in Reformed circles today, that the Mosaic Covenant is merely a covenant of pure grace, devoid of any works element, is a modern reaction against dispensationalism’.[4]
Is it too hard to think that the pendulum may have swung a little too far?
When looking back at the more orthodox Reformed views, Lee Irons also argues persuasively that in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, ‘there were two historic positions within mainstream Reformed covenant theology… the first position is that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially a gracious covenant administered in a legal manner. The second, quite widespread opinion is that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.’[5]
In these more historic forms, the conditional aspects of the Mosaic Covenant were far more visible and pronounced. When compared to these earlier views, dispensational notions of the mosaic covenant stood in much closer proximity. But in John Murray’s Covenant Theology, they are ignored completely and any law/gospel contrast is flattened out.
My point here, is that if we were to measure the difference between covenant theology and dispensationalism at this point, as most do, they appear like oil and water. Both systems are incompatible and diametrically opposed.
But does this give us the full picture?
Not at all. When a dispensational understanding of the biblical covenants is compared to some of these earlier Reformed formulations, they are in fact quite compatible.
What was John Murray’s view of the Mosaic covenant?
In a nutshell, he agrees with many dispensationalists in the ultimately gracious and unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant, but he differs sharply in his understanding of the Mosaic covenant. His general bent is to make all the biblical covenants the same. They all need to fit into the overarching mould of the Covenant of Grace. The contours of his covenant theology are therefore flat and monolithic.
First, he describes the Abrahamic covenant as, ‘divinely unilateral’.[6] He makes the point that, ‘It is not Abraham who passes through between the divided pieces of the animals; it is the theophany.’ [7] But a key point of difference is seen when he takes the pattern of this covenant, and uses it to govern his understanding of all subsequent covenants.
When he comes to the Mosaic covenant, the law becomes the gospel, and he considers it the same in nature as the Abrahamic. To him it is just another, ‘sovereign administration of grace’.[8] In his words, ‘What needs to be emphasized… is that the Mosaic covenant in respect of the condition of obedience is not in a different category from the Abrahamic… In reality there is nothing that is principally different’.[9]
In terms of our main question, John Murray answers one aspect of the tension while ignoring the other. He couldn’t be any clearer in emphasizing the way of salvation by grace throughout the mosaic economy, but he is forced to deny all biblical data that might suggest the conditional nature of the Mosaic Covenant. This is the great weakness of his view.
It doesn’t successfully account for the clear evidence of a bilateral covenant, where blood was sprinkled on both parties and the Israelites stood at the foot of Mt Sinai saying, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” (Exodus 24:7). It doesn’t answer the concerns raised by crucial passages like Galatians 3-4, Hebrews 7-9, and 2 Corinthians 3. It doesn’t align with the works principle of ‘Do this and live’ (Leviticus 18:5). And for many, both within and without Reformed circles, a Mosaic covenant of pure grace devoid of any works element, simply doesn’t do justice to God’s Word. This thorny problem requires a more satisfactory answer.
In conclusion, this first approach is quite bad.
In our next article, we will look at a better form of covenant theology.
[1] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 5.
[2] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 5.
[3] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 5.
[4] Lee Irons, Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Survey of Major Covenant Theologians, Page 2.
[5] Lee Irons, Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Survey of Major Covenant Theologians, Page 1-2.
[6] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 17.
[7] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 17.
[8] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 22.
[9] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, Page 22.
Dispensational Federalism 