Comparing the Systematics in OT Theology - Part II (The Mosaic Covenant)
The Mosaic covenant
The Mosaic covenant is that which God made with the nation of Israel at Sinai, and for that reason it is sometimes referred to as the Sinaitic covenant. The details are laid out in Exodus 20 – 31. All systems agree that this covenant is conditional: it was dependent upon the obedience of the people as a nation.[1] Geerhardus Vos points out that while this is the first time the term berith was used with regard to a two-sided arrangement, it is nonetheless a covenant in which the nation of Israel as a whole was referenced and whose assent was required.[2] Its promises were available to Israel when they obeyed, but when, as a whole, they “were characterized as a faithless nation, they experienced the curses rather than the blessings of the covenant.”[3]
Some difficulty arises when understanding the covenant stipulations for covering of sin. The question is whether that provides any means of salvation. In answer to this all systems agree that the stipulations do not provide any means of redemption, even while each might claim the other teaches differently. Daniel Fuller points out that “although today’s dispensationalism explains the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from that of covenant theology, there is no substantial difference in meaning.”[4] The covenant theologian shows that in order to provide salvation this covenant of law would need to annul the previous promises made to Abraham, but it in no way annulled those promises.[5] The conditional element of the covenant was not for “the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation….”[6] Vos shows that “law-keeping did not figure at that juncture as the meritorious ground of life-inheritance.”[7] Early dispensationalists so emphasized the difference inherent in this covenant that it sounded as though there were two different ways of salvation: one for the old covenant and one for the new. Ryrie, however, argues that grace was available under the law and as such has always been the means for salvation.[8] Chafer, in his Systematic Theology, likewise notes that the covenant was not given to them “as a means of redemption or attainment unto a covenant relation to God….”[9]
The differences between the systems are highlighted in the stress placed on the continuity or discontinuity of the progressive revelation that is found in God’s covenant at Sinai. The covenant theologian emphasizes the continuity of the Mosaic covenant in God’s redemptive plan. Robertson notes that there is a basic unity in the Mosaic covenant with the other covenants.[10] Berkhof is more explicit: “[t]he covenant of Sinai was essentially the same as that established with Abraham, though the form differed somewhat.”[11] While essentially the same as the other covenants, its legal stipulations form the basis of national administration and demonstrate the legal dimension of their relationship with God.[12] Hodge insists that in the New Testament we find authority for “believing that the covenant of grace, or plan of salvation, thus underlay the whole of the institutions of the Mosaic period, and that their principal design was to teach through types and symbols what is now taught in explicit terms in the gospel.”[13] This law is consummated in Jesus Christ and his inauguration of the new covenant.[14] Robertson points out that law still plays a role in the life of the believer today, although today, as stipulated through the new covenant, the law is written on his or her heart.[15] Further, Hodge states that as Adam was given the covenant of works it is always true that “rational creatures who perfectly obey the law of God are blessed in the enjoyment of his favour [sic]; and that those who sin are subject to his wrath and curse.”[16] Thus, the Mosaic covenant, as taught through the new covenant, still has some application to the believer today.
The dispensational theologian emphasizes the discontinuity of the Mosaic covenant from God’s previous revelation. Ryrie states that “the Mosaic Law is kept so distinct from the promise to Abraham that it is difficult not to recognize a different dispensation.”[17] This dispensation is maintained until the coming of Christ, when God changes his dealing with men. Chafer notes that “[i]t should take no effort to recognize that the Mosaic covenant was never addressed to Christians…”[18] Dispensationalists agree that the new covenant supersedes the Mosaic; however, it will not occur until the millennial kingdom is set up.[19] Thus, the church age is a gap between the Mosaic and millennial dispensations. In the face of this discontinuity, given their position that grace is found in the Mosaic era, as has been previously noted, we find some form of continuity.
The progressive dispensational theologian attempts to soften the hard distinction laid out in dispensational theology between the Mosaic covenant and the other covenants. Blaising and Bock point out that the Mosaic covenant is dependent upon the Abrahamic covenant. If any generation were to fail to meet the terms of the Mosaic covenant because of the Abrahamic covenant, “the opportunity still exists for a renewed offer of blessing to that generation or later descendants of Abraham.”[20] Likewise, Saucy explains that the establishment of a nation at Sinai was the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.[21] Fulfillment of this covenant is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. This Mosaic dispensation was not utterly different than what came before it since it brought part of the blessing promised to the Abraham and his descendants, but it is still different in that it was “a new arrangement for realizing those blessings.”[22]
[1] Hodge 1999, 375; Chafer 1976, 144; MacArthur 2004, note on Lev. 26:15; Blaising and Bock 1993, 142-143.
[2] Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948, 137-139.
[3] Blaising and Bock 1993, 147; Vos 1948, 143 notes that God was dealing primarily with the nation and through the nation the individual, therefore the attitude of the nation and its representative leaders was decisive;
[4] Fuller 1980, 51.
[5] Robertson 1980, 174.
[6] Berkhof 1948, 298.
[7] Vos 1948, 143.
[8] Ryrie 1965, 119-131.
[9] Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. VII. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, 98.
[10] Robertson 1980, 167.
[11] Berkhof 1948, 297.
[12] Robertson 1980, 171-172.
[13] Hodge 1999, 375.
[14] Robertson 1980, 198.
[15] Ibid., 182-183.
[16] Hodge 1999, 375.
[17] Ryrie 1965, 61.
[18] Chafer Systematic Theology Vol. VII, 1948, 98.
[19] Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. IV. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, 314.
[20] Blaising and Bock 1993, 144.
[21] Saucy 1993, 46.
[22] Blaising and Bock 1993, 150-151.
