In attempting to rightly understand the mosaic covenant, we are considering three different forms of covenant theology. By way of outline I am suggesting they progress from bad, to better, to best.
In our last article we considered John Murray’s covenant theology and his understanding of the mosaic covenant. In stark contrast to dispensationalists, he understood the mosaic covenant to be gracious and ultimately unconditional. But his recasting of covenant theology didn’t stop there. He also denied the Covenant of Works by framing God’s pre-fall arrangement with Adam in gracious terms. In this respect his covenant theology not only differed from dispensationalism, it also differed from the more orthodox and historic forms of Reformed theology. McMahon writes, “Covenant theology, now, needs to be rescued from Murray’s conceptions surrounding the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works”.[1]
To give us some perspective, John Murray’s covenant theology stands at one end of the covenantal spectrum. But we turn now to what I think is a better solution. A view somewhere near the middle of the Reformed spectrum.
Approach No. 2 – The Substance/Administration Distinction
In the 16th and 17th centuries many Reformed theologians made an important distinction. They distinguished between ‘essence’ and ‘accidents’, or between the ‘substance’ and ‘administration’ of the Covenant of Grace. They reasoned that, “the covenant of grace is one and the same substance no matter where it is found in redemptive history”.[2] This allowed them to affirm multiple administrations that could vary in minor details, but one covenant of grace that was unified in essence.
The strength of this distinction can be seen in its handling of the tension we identified when trying to grapple with the nature of the mosaic covenant. On the one hand, the biblical data suggests conditionality. On the other, the necessity of salvation by grace demands the mosaic covenant be considered in gracious terms.
The substance/administration distinction was helpful because it allowed both aspects of this tension to be answered. Salvation by grace throughout the mosaic economy could be upheld because the Mosaic covenant was substantially gracious. At the same time, any biblical data describing legal or conditional aspects of the mosaic covenant could be acknowledged at the level of administration or accidents.
In contrast to the limitations imposed by John Murray’s view, proponents of this position could make clear statements about the differences between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants just as the scriptures do.
Michael Horton, for example, can read Galatians 4:21-31, where it describes ‘two covenants’ (v24), and speak of two quite different covenants, “a covenant of law is established at Mount Sinai [and] a covenant of promise is given to Abraham”.[3]
In similar fashion Brown and Keele can say of these covenants, “The difference is also felt in kind. In the Abrahamic covenant, God made a unilateral and gracious promise to Abraham, but to the nation of Israel God covenanted himself by works”.[4]
But when they each step back and consider the Mosaic covenant in a broader sense, they can distance themselves from sounding dispensational by still affirming the substantial unity of the covenant of grace. The mosaic covenant remains substantially gracious.
How successful is this approach?
At first glance the substance/administration distinction does seem to acknowledge the scriptures that speak of the conditional nature of the mosaic covenant. This approach does move closer to the scriptural account, but the question is, does it align entirely with the biblical data? Is this a necessary or legitimate distinction?
In assessing this difficult question Geerhardus Vos is helpful. He also upheld the substantial unity of the covenant of grace, “The Sinaitic covenant is not a new covenant as concerns the essence of the matter, but the old covenant of grace established with Abraham in somewhat changed form.”[5]
But to support that position he made the claim that, “Paul nowhere sets the Sinaitic covenant in its entirety over against the Abrahamic covenant”.[6] And that is a helpful observation because that is the specific claim that needs to be tested. Does Paul, or any other biblical author for that matter, ever contrast entire covenants? Are just the legal aspects of the mosaic covenant in view when contrasts are drawn or does the entire mosaic covenant ever get contrasted with the Abrahamic or New covenants?
We will look at this in more detail. But for now, we can summarize this second approach by saying that its better than John Murray’s, but it’s not the best. In the 16th and 17th centuries there were also some notable Reformed theologians who drew an even sharper distinction. They thought that the mosaic covenant differed at the level of substance.
We will look at this third approach next and bring this series to a conclusion.
[1] John Murray’s Reformulation of the Covenant of Grace, C. Matthew McMahon
[2] OPC, Report of the Committee to Study Republication, p10
[3] Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, p35
[4] Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele, Sacred Bond, Covenant Theology Explored, p108
[5] Nicholas T. Batzig, Geerhardus Vos on the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Grace, Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, p76-80
[6] Nicholas T. Batzig, Geerhardus Vos on the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Grace, Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, p76-80
Dispensational Federalism 