Proofs the Law Was Not A Republication of the CoW but a Part of the CoG and Gospel

1Sa 14:24  And the men of Israel had been hard pressed that day, so Saul had laid an oath on the people, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” So none of the people had tasted food.

32  The people pounced on the spoil and took sheep and oxen and calves and slaughtered them on the ground. And the people ate them with the blood. 33  Then they told Saul, “Behold, the people are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood.”

Typology of Law and Grace
LEX REX  the position of King represents Law.  Kings make the law.   Saul representing the law added extra burden on to the people. They rejected the God of grace as their king and would be like the world and have a fleshly king so they get fleshly law and burdens and nearly starve.

You either have Christ as your “king of grace” or if you live by the flesh you have earthly fleshly kings of law who put you in bondage and tempted them to sin more.

1Sa 14:27  But Jonathan had not heard his father charge the people with the oath, so he put out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes became bright. 28  Then one of the people said, “Your father strictly charged the people with an oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the man who eats food this day.'” And the people were faint.

38  And Saul said, “Come here, all you leaders of the people, and know and see how this sin has arisen today. 39  For as the LORD lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.” But there was not a man among all the people who answered him.

Those of the Law want to put to death those of faith.

You either have Saul who reminds us of Pharaoh, bondage, slavery and the Cov of Works or law, by making his own laws or oaths  —
or you have Jonathan, the type of Christ, the Son of the King who would be put to death under the Law even though He saved the people.

BUT Even a fleshly savior, a near perfect man like Jonathan who trusted God and delivered His people is still a failure under the king’s law and gets death.  By the law: We see that we need a different savior, a heavenly, a Savior who can keep it fully, perfectly.

From the exile from the garden until Mt Sinai, the Covenant of Grace had no king, no laws.
God already had a plan for Christ to satisfy the cov of works for His chosen people so there was no need for a law.

But the visible chosen people wanted to be like the world, like the unchosen, with a flesh king.

The Mosaic law was added “to the covenant of grace” as a tutor to bring them to see their sins and inability to satisfy God and have a relationship with Him and need of a savior.

But they misuse the law and seek to follow it from their flesh to be righteous with God by keeping it and so it becomes bondage to them and death. So now they starve and die spiritually under the law from their flesh because they are fleshly with a flesh king and laws they can’t satisfy. Or some are deceived and become proud and think they do merit by having kept them.

So the fact not every Israelite was converted by the gracious giving of the gospel in the old covenant, does not make it a CoW or take away its graciousness or the free offer intended through Christ in it. We hold to a free offer or indiscriminate offer of the gospel to every person even if we see it as a command, or both, knowing that not all will obtain it, and only the elect will. This does not change it such that we do not “plead with men” as Paul did. Our limited finite minds may not be able to satisfactorily analyze and understand these things but let us accept them anyway and submit our understanding in humility to God and the perspicuity of His word. He has given us what we need to know and share. Let us be more about the distribution of the gospel and advancing the kingdom, breaking through the gates of hell than straining gnats, and 2Ti 2:14  Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
—————–

We might press the allegory so far as to say, rather than only serving its intended purpose, the Mosaic law, by their misuse, trying to be righteous with God by keeping it, becomes a reminder of the Covenant of Works  they are under as a judgment and curse. But unlike the CoW it offers them no way to satisfy it.

We may be able to go so far as to say the apparent confusion of Paul speaking of the Law being bondage and also being a gracious schoolmaster holy and good to the believer and why Paul does not use the terms civil/ceremonial law and moral law to distinguish them even though he is speaking about each of them in different places, is because though civil/ceremonial laws ended for the people of the earthly nation of Israel with Christ’s coming, yet they are a type or reminder of the Moral law. So Paul bounces back and forth between the several uses and meanings of the term because the one points to other.

The question is was there ever really a Covenant of Works? This is a human construct of logic to help us understand and distinguish parts of God’s plan of Redemption. It is not mentioned as such in scripture and it is only hypothetical to say Adam may have inherited eternal life for all of us, as this was never God’s plan. And yet in terms of human responsibility which God does speak from in scripture also, it is not wrong to carefully use this term.

But really, it was not the intent of giving of the Mosiac law to be a CoW or a republication of it.

We are told the law was added. So the important question to ask is: What was the law added to? 
The answer is to the Abrahamic covenant, which was CoG not CoW. So the Law was part of or an addendum to the CoG; not a CoW. To say it is a republication of the CoW confuses and mixes up the two covenants. The law is part of the CoG. The new covenant also has: Do this and live, don’t do this and die, statements as well. Obedience is required in the new covenant also and that does not make it a CoW.  Only the unbelievers saw the law as a covenant of works to merit, like the Pharisees who were rebuked for seeing it in this fleshly aspect instead of a spiritual one pointing them to Christ.  We could pretty much end our argument here.

Scripture tells us the purpose of the Mosaic law was given graciously as a part of or under or at the same time that the Covenant of Grace was in effect to the “Chosen” people so they would see their sin and inability to be righteous with God and need a savior. And this is at the same time a type or allegory and example to us in the new covenant. God’s intent was to show them their sin and tutor them to Christ.
Gal 3:19  Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions,

Rom 7:7  Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

They would have been as the Gentiles and not known they needed a Savior and would have eternally perished.  So the law is not against the “promises of God”, not against Grace or the CoG.

Rom 7:12  So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13  Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

The other nations did not have the law given to them graciously as the Israelites did, so they did not see their need of a savior, so they were lost. The unchosen were not given the gracious gift of the Mosaic law to tutor them to Christ. They were under the CoW and the justice and judgment of it, but without the “Advantages of the Jews” so it is only judgment and death to them even if they did not have the law given to them as the Israelites did.   Rom 2:12  For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

So yes the law can be seen as distinct from gospel, yet we do best to speak of it as: the Mosaic Law is given in grace, as a part of the CoG or subservient covenant to the CoG or an addendum to the CoG or there is a “gracious giving of the law” to the “chosen people”, so that we see the need for a Savior.
The law is so closely a part of the gospel that when Christ was asked what do I do to inherit eternal life, unlike most modern pastors He did not say pray this prayer with me, He said Keep the commandments.  Why?  To show the person their need of a savior outside of themself.
The same words law or CoW may be used interchangeably at times because of the immediate context and ideas seeking to be conveyed, that do not mean the author necessarily would condone them being used to support that the Mosaic law was given as a repub of the CoW.

The moral law is different in its effect on the unbeliever and the elect. We can look at it in respect of its result to groups also and speak from that perspective. To the reprobate the law brings only judgment and death, but to the elect it has its gracious work of ploughing the soil, bringing repentance as we turn from self to a Savior presented in the gospel who fulfills the law for us and atones for sin.

The symbolism and analogies are so varied that authors may use less than precise language at times and still convey the intent of what they mean.  Such that a person may reference law to CoW at one point where they would not at another. To quote them when they are speaking to one perspective of the relationship you cannot just apply it to another.

**So the Moral law is a piece. As a piece it was given as a CoW to Adam. That same piece, moral law summed in the 10 commands was given to the chosen people of God  as part of the Mosaic covenant, and as such was a gracious covenant, the people not being able to fulfill it so the sacrifices pointed to God and Christ who would fulfill it for them. This is pure CoG.  Though they promised to keep it, God told them from the start that they would not be able to keep it, and so pointed them to their inability and need of a savior.

We have law and gospel, we need both, we need to be able to use the terms to refer to different things at different times without always being held to be exacting and precise verbiage and terms from just one perspective of whether the Mosaic 10 commands were only a CoW for Israel and nothing more.  That is an extremely limited and narrow consideration of the law and covenant and not one necessarily and specifically wrestled with by most of the cited authors of history speaking about the law and covenants.

In fact were they asked this pointedly I think they would clarify their meanings that point to republication or referencing the CoW in relation to the 10 commands that they did not mean to equate them nor would they agree that the 10 were only a republication of the CoW and they would in fact denounce as error that position and not have their language used to support the tolerance of that position.
When they speak of the Mosaic law as a covenant of works, they mean it as a part or piece of the CoG or  a subserviant covenant, or that regarding temporal land typology it is in the form of  a CoW or that it reflects the CoW to the people such that they are pointed to Christ seeing their inability, though they may vary widely in how they express this or press the allegory.

But they do not mean that Mosaic law was a CoW that could have accepted imperfect obedience and be fulfilled by the people or that the 10 commands were abrogated in the new covenant as a rule of life. And would any say it was such a CoW that there was merit apart from grace that would enable them to stay in the land?  Was it really only a works principle covenant? No. Were the 10 commands to be seen only as part of a special covenant only for the Israelites, No!  They would all agree.

Here are some examples of men taken out of context and misused by Repub promoters:

In his portion of the Fesko/Godfrey Report to the WSC Board of Trustees for this May meeting, Dr. Fesko quotes Robert Shaw’s statement that “the law, therefore, was published at Sinai as a covenant of works, in subservience to the covenant of grace.”  But he doesn’t quote Shaw’s immediately following explanation that I have quoted here, beginning with “Not that it was the design of God to renew a covenant of works with Israel…”; thus giving the reader perhaps a false impression of Dr. Shaw’s doctrine.

The WC also supports this understanding and does not allow for a republication as a CoW

Strimple explains: Only in WCF 19:1,2 is the phrase “covenant of works” used in a context that refers also to the Mosaic covenant, and there it used to draw a contrast between the law as given to Adam (“as a covenant of works”), and the law as it continues to be for everyone “after his fall…a perfect rule of righteousness,” which is also as it was delivered (“as such”) “by God upon Mount Sinai…”  Note well that the contrast is not between the law given in to Adam and the law given to all men after Adam’s fall, including those who received the law delivered upon Mount Sinai.  It is the moral law of God that is in view in each case.   The contrast lies in the purpose or function for which that moral law was given in each case, the purpose expressed in those three phrases that begin with “as” (sec. 1, the reposition “as” means “in the role, function, or status of”), “to be” (sec. 2), and again “as” (sec. 2).

Another example from the WC by Strimple is:
A distinction must be made between the moral law of God and the purpose it served before the fall (“as a covenant of works”), and the moral law of God and the purpose it serves after the fall (see sec. 6), for which purpose it was delivered upon Mount Sinai (see sec. 2); i.e., as “a perfect rule of righteousness.”  The Confession says that the moral law that God gave to Adam as a covenant of works is the “very same law” that continues to be a perfect rule of righteousness for us; and it was that law (I shall refer again below to the force of the “as such” in section 2) that “was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai.” But that law does not continue as a covenant of works for us, and it was not delivered upon Mount Sinai as a covenant or works for the children of Israel.  This is what the Confession teaches.

Dr. Clark presents his argument.  He emphasizes that the words “This law” with which 19:2 begins save as their antecedent the law referred to in 19:1—which is certainly true—but he insists that therefore “this law” is “the very same ‘law’ which the confession described in 19:1 as the covenant of works”—which is certainly not true.  Think about it.  The phrase “this law” appears again in section 3; and it is clear that the “law” referred to in sec. 1, “this law” referred to in sec. 2, and “this law” described in sec. 3, are all the very same law, the law which we learn in sec. 3 is “commonly called moral,” the law “beside” which God also gave Israel “ceremonial laws” (sec. 3) and “judicial laws” (sec. 4).  That moral law was given to Adam “as a covenant of works” (sec. 1), but it “continued to be” for all Adam’s posterity “after his fall…a perfect rule of righteousness.”  That moral law “doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof” (section 5).

In other words, Dr. Clark’s argument would prove too much, far too much.  If “this law” in section 2 Equals  the covenant of works described in sec. 1 (as he insists), and that is the same law spoken of again in sec. 3 as “this law,” then (ergo) that law (“the very same ‘law’ which the confession described in

19:1 as the covenant of works,” Clark) continues to bind “all, as well justified persons as others” (section 5), and that includes you and me.  That is clearly not what the Confession is saying (or even suggesting”).  In section 6 the Confession says explicitly that “true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works…”, and the implication of that sentence is that “true believers” in all ages, including the Mosaic era, have never, in any sense, been under the Law as a covenant of works.  Section 6 tells us what it means to be under the law as a perfect rule of righteousness, though not as a covenant of works.  And note especially what is said about that moral law later in section 6: “The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.”
———————

Roland Ward writes:  “If we speak of the giving of the Ten Commandments as a republication of the law written on the heart in a form of words appropriate for its recipients—and it is correct to do so—we need to remember the context of redemptive grace in which the giving occurred” (The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide, p. 116, italics added).  Note that Ward says not a word here about the law being given upon Mount Sinai as a republication of the covenant of works.

Secondly we know that there is no way a sinful person can merit anything from God, it is all of grace and even our sanctification which we co-operate with grace, is not from the flesh or apart from the work of the Spirit such that we cannot say that we merit that which was given to us by grace even when we co-operate and are responsible for our choices. Phil 2:13 is mysterious to us but it is going on.
Therefore it would not make sense to see the covenant allegory not be consistent with the plan of redemption and sanctification such that it would offer merit from the flesh apart from grace. Then the “law” would be against the promises of God.

The Mosaic law is a gracious gift to the “chosen people” under the operation of the CoG to God’s “chosen” people, so that we see our sin and know we need a savior and turn to Christ. It was law, not gospel, but there is no need for a gospel without that law and it specifically applies to all people not just the Israelites.  Else what is the content of the moral law we tell sinners they have violated? Where in scripture if not the 10 commands is the precise moral law laid out for us? Shall we tell them not to eat of the tree of knowledge?   Why would Jesus who came to preach not old covenant or Judaism but the gospel of the kingdom and the kingdom of heaven, answer the question what must I do to be saved, with Keep the commandments?  If it was not part of the entire “gospel message”, as opposed to the gospel distinguished from the law or the ground work for the gospel to cause the person to see their sin and need for Christ, then what was it?
The 10 commands were written with the finger of God and written in Stone which means lasts forever, not temporal for Israel alone.

So we are not antinomian. We do not seek to bring an end to the law or dismiss it or be free of it. We love the law of God, the commandments are not a burden, it is written on our hearts and we could even say: We are saved by the law because we are “In Christ” who fulfilled the law to impute to us a Righteous standing with God. It was by the Grace of Law, the gracious gift of Christ’s keeping the law for us we are saved and His atonement for sin.

We preach the law now to all nations so they will repent and turn to Christ also. The law is preached along with the gospel and it is death unto death or life unto life.

2Co 2: 15  For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16  to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?

Rom 3:31  Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Covenant Allegory
The word law does not mean CoW every time it is used. We have to guard against thinking that and see all the different way the word is used and its various meetings.  When we see the word law, CoW is not always meant. The Law is not the same as the CoW. Consider maintaining a distinction of the two they are not the same in every case.  There is moral law, old covenant law, law of Christ, people of the law, works, flesh among meanings and uses.

But to extract the Mosaic law out of the context of the CoG in which it was given to the visible covenant people of God, “Chosen people”, My People I brought out of Egypt to bring into the promised land etc., its true covenant context, and then analyze it is an artificial or at least different way of looking at the Mosaic law.

 *Sure in isolation it looks like a CoW, but we are not left to question this. Paul tells us its intent by God was to show our sin and tutor us to Christ.  It was also to be a rule of life to the people of God then as it still continues to be since we are all in the House of Israel the chosen people. This is the only proper covenant view.

Now can we draw other application or in a systematic theology speak of it as a reminder of the CoW in its extracted form? Yes. And so some men do speak this way in one place and then, like Calvin, in more complete clarity speak of it in its context in the CoG.

*So the way we speak about the Mosaic law is not only one way or the other, but it can be spoken of in more than one way or from one perspective or context or another. We should use care not to build a false theology by the misuse of how it is being used in one place and equating that to another perspective.  Or misconstrue how one author uses it in some places without comparing to how he uses it in other contexts.

Gal 4:24 One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25  Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26  But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Remember, the scriptures do not speak of a CoW and CoG or in those two related terms. So do not confuse and think Hagar is CoW and Sarah the CoG. The 2 covenants in scripture are the new and old administrations of the CoG.

It is all about the Covenant of Grace after the garden.

The  CoW is in the mind and decrees of God.
Man has nothing more to do with the CoW after Adam except as we see the result of it, we are all under its curse and Christ fulfilling it for the elect  on the cross. Then we see the final result of it condemning of the reprobate in Revelation final judgment.

The believing Jews in the new covenant were told that they are not under Hagar the old covenant laws, Mosaic laws were only until Christ.  His main theme there in Gal. was Judaizers saying you must also follow the laws and be circumcised along with Christ were wrong, because the tutor is no longer needed. That is seeing the laws (as a tutor) from that perspective. And we are not under the curse of the law (as a CoW) from that perspective.  He is speaking in Gal. of old covenant and new covenant not Cow and CoG.  See below the allegory properly explained:

Matthew Henry  (Gal_4:24-27): These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant. The former, Agar, represented that which was given from mount Sinai, and which gendereth to bondage, which, though it was a dispensation of grace, yet, in comparison of the gospel state, was a dispensation of bondage, and became more so to the Jews, through their mistake of the design of it, and expecting to be justified by the works of it. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia (mount Sinai was then called Agar by the Arabians), and it answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, it justly represents the present state of the Jews, who, continuing in their infidelity and adhering to that covenant, are still in bondage with their children. But the other, Sarah, was intended to prefigure Jerusalem which is above, or the state of Christians under the new and better dispensation of the covenant, which is free both from the curse of the moral and the bondage of the ceremonial law, and is the mother of us all – a state into which all, both Jews and Gentiles, are admitted, upon their believing in Christ. And to this greater freedom and enlargement of the church under the gospel dispensation, which was typified by Sarah the mother of the promised seed,

So Hagar, Mosaic law, is not a repub of the CoW, so much as it is the old administration of the CoG, the old covenant vs. the new covenant.

The Mosaic law is therefore gracious to the chosen who accept the CoG offered in the law/gospel call. 

Paul speaks of it here as the tutor to bring us to Christ. That was the purpose of the Mosaic law, not to condemn us, we already had moral law, CoW, for that and it was a done deal, over, complete. Do not confuse the Mosaic law with the CoW they are not the same and had different purposes and functions.

In fact Paul corrects their thinking that the law was a CoW they could be justified by and he tells them that was not the purpose of the law. 

Gal 3:18  For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; 19  Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions,

Gal 3:21  For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.

 

This “law was added”. What was it added to???

It was added in to the old administration of the ongoing CoG because they did not see their transgressions, inability to get righteous with God, and need of God to save them.  It is graciously given as part of the CoG to the “chosen people” typologically of the elect.

 

In the new covenant we have Sarah, freedom from that old cov Tutor.

And free from the slavish and the external aspect of the law on stone because now in the new better covenant the moral law is written on our hearts desire so we can keep it, though imperfectly still due to indwelling sin. 

*Our relationship with the law has changed from external to internal, Christ the law keeper living in us and empowering us to keep the commandments.

 

The “Old covenant” was only bondage and death or a CoW to those who thought to save themselves by the flesh, misusing the law to merit salvation rather than being humbled by it, seeing there was no way they could satisfy God and no earthly king could save them, and cry out for God to be their king and save them!!! 

To show them they needed a spiritual savior from their sin, not another earthly king to raise a nation again as the Jews and modern dispensationals think.  This is all the stories of the Old covenant, you can’t save yourself or know God on your terms, you need a Savior who is not just another man.

 

 

Paul tells us Mosaic law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, he does not call it a CoW for them.   He says the Mosaic laws were ADDED to the old covenant administration which has ended now we are in the new covenant with better things and as Heb tells us the old had copies of the heavenly:
Heb 8:5  They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6  But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

 

Heb_9:23  Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Now by this added law, that Paul says has ended, we see clearly it is not the 10 commands nor the moral law, but the tutor laws for the nation, days, months years etc..
Gal 4:9  But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?  10  You observe days and months and seasons and years!

 

Paul validates this by reminding us that this amendment or added in law/covenant does not supersede or replace the covenant with Abraham. Therefore is must be part of that covenant.

Gal 3:17  This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

*So the promises annexed to the covenant with Abraham are still in place and continue, meaning there is no new or replacement promises. The addition of the mosaic law did not alter the Abrahamic. It is still in place for the people of God and ongoing. Therefore if they are under a CoG how can they be placed under a CoW at the same time. Then it would be against the Promises of God. It function as a part of or tutor to the original and only that.
**The old covenant administration of the CoG did include a, “do this and get to live in the land temporally”, as a type of heaven.  Perhaps you could say, though the Mosaic laws were intended to be the tutor to bring them to see their sin and need of Christ, it was given in the form of a covenant to stay in the land by works or obedience to it.  No problem there. So it can be seen as a reminder or reflection of the CoW to show them their inability to please Him and need of a savior.   So long as we understand there was no sense in which the fallen people could keep it, and that God did not give it with the intent of them being able to keep it or fulfill it. And no person let alone the nation could have kept it at all except by grace. There would be no merit in their keeping it therefore.  And we see this because God did accept their imperfect obedience and did not kill them all off or send them back to the wilderness as He would have like Adam had it been a CoW. That can only be because their imperfect obedience was seen, through covenant grace, and graciously accepted as He accepts our obedience in the NT through Christ, though it does not merit His sparing our life one minute or merit eternal life. Remember remember remember:

1Co 10:11  Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

This passage has to be a part of our hermeneutic of the OT and old covenant!!!   We are In Christ! And seen as in Christ. And typologically by the sacrifices etc. so were they as an example for us.

 

*Bottom line the Mosaic law can be spoken of in terms of both, CoG and CoW not just one. So from one perspective of the old covenant laws we may be reminded of the CoW, but we also see from NT eyes it was meant to be a tutor to Christ.
Some Israelites were saved and in the covenant of Grace while under the Old Covenant administration of the CoG just as some are saved in the new covenant administered by Christ’s mediation.

*We could even try to strain the gnat and say there is no grace in the preaching of the moral law itself, though it may be used as a means by the Spirit to plough up the heart and prepare it for the grace given in the gospel.
But when one preaches the law and grace in the same sermon and a person is converted by the Spirit, would we not speak of it as a “gospel message” and a work of grace in the person through the preaching?
Must we so divide it up to strain the gnat to say, there was no grace during the law part of the sermon until it became gospel. Then the Spirit convicted them of their sin by the law and this still was not from grace, but then He gave them faith in the atonement and forgiveness and this was when grace started?   I find it hard to so rip this apart.
There is a law gospel distinction, but both are to be preached and when the law is preached, grace is evidenced in those who believe and judgment to those who reject. The gospel, just as much as the law, becomes judgment to those who reject Christ.
**My concern is when we do not see how law and gospel are laid out before us in the OT history, types, allegories and examples for us, and both are not presented to people in a sermon, some people begin to separate them so much the they do not preach the law with the gospel, or they seek to abandon the law and only the “gospel” is presented or seen as or needed.  We end up with a weak or false “gospel message” as a result. We end up without repentance and conviction of sin being a part of the gospel or normal Christian life. This is a great error today. If not an antinomian lifestyle, at least we have an antinomian gospel presentation. 

 

**So you tell me the “timeline” when grace starts in conversion or regeneration: during the conviction of the Spirit from the preaching of the law, or not until the atonement is offered?
I would think it is grace alone that causes one to come under conviction and repentance from the hearing of the law and judgment, and continues through their sense of the offer.

 

That is all I am saying. To the one being converted, the law is a means of grace to them as the Spirit works conviction in them driving them to Christ. Thus the copy of the heavenly in the Mosaic law represents the grace of the Spirit convicting a person to drive them to Christ. This is how I read Paul and the NT.
It is from this perspective I see the Mosaic law intended as a gracious gift tutoring them to Christ.  It is an external covenant blessing.  Rom 3:1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3  What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?  4  By no means!

                                          

I read these verses as: the law and prophets were a gracious gift and so what that some of the Israelites did not benefit from it? That does not detract from its intent being a blessing gift to the visible covenant people. In human terms, a chance to hear the word of God and know God that the other people outside the covenant people did not get.

 

It was only by the misuse of the Mosaic law by Israelites that made it bondage, or a reminder of the CoW, that was not its intent to the chosen people. Or by the later Judaizers who sought to add works of the laws to faith for justification. The Mosaic law was not a CoW that could save them or even judge them, they were already judged under Moral law and the CoW in the garden. That was past. The giving of the Mosaic law was just to show them their sin and need of a savior.

Note the differences:

1. The Mosaic law as not given to condemn men or judge them, the CoW had already done that. Completed!
2. The CoW was not given to show us our sin or tutor us to Christ.
3. There was no way to be justified by the Mosaic law so it was not a CoW that could be earned by works as was the case for Adam.
4. Adam was head in the CoW for all people. This was not the case with the Mosaic law. No one represented to pass or fail for anyone. The CoW and Mosaic law are very different in purpose and intent for being given and to whom is represented by them.
5. Christ did not keep or perfectly obey the Mosaic or civil/ceremonial laws to impute righteousness to us, He kept the CoW moral law.
   

 

Calvin deals with this subject in many places in his writings.  For starters, one should consult the section of his Institutes that deals with the similarities between the Old and New Testaments.  If you don’t already have it in your library, you can read it here.  Here is the substance of his view:
And, indeed, both these topics may be dispatched in one word. The covenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially from ours, that it is the very same; it only varies in the administration. But as such extreme brevity would not convey to any man a clear understanding of the subject, it is necessary, if we would do any good, to proceed to a more diffuse explication of it. But in showing their similarity, or rather unity, it will be needless to recapitulate all the particulars which have already been mentioned, and unseasonable to introduce those things which remain to be discussed in some other place. We must here insist chiefly on three principal points. We have to maintain, First, that carnal opulence and felicity were not proposed to the Jews as the mark towards which they should ultimately aspire, but that they were adopted to the hope of immortality, and that the truth of this adoption was certified to them by oracles, by the law, and by the prophets. Secondly, that the covenant, by which they were united to the Lord, was founded, not on any merits of theirs, but on the mere mercy of God who called them. Thirdly, that they both possessed and knew Christ as the Mediator, by whom they were united to God, and became partakers of his promises (Institutes, II.x.2)
Admittedly, there are times in Calvin’s writings where he speaks of the peculiar ministry of Moses with reference to the law in a different way.  This often appears in his analysis of the Pauline epistles.  However, Calvin’s comments in his Institutes with regard to this aspect of his teaching needs to be heeded:

“Paul was disputing with perverse teachers who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the Law. Consequently, to refute their error he was sometimes compelled to take the bare Law in a narrow sense, even though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption.”  (II.vi.2)

In other words, if we abstract the Mosaic law out of its true place in the covenant of grace, we end up with something substantially distinct from a covenant of grace.  This is what the Pharisees did, and Paul takes them to task for it.

 

Furthermore, we must also note that some recent writers have tried to argue that Calvin viewed the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works.  How this idea fits with the following quotation is beyond us:

Now, as to the new covenant, it is not so called, because it is contrary to the first covenant; for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself, he then who once made a covenant with his chosen people, had not changed his purpose, as though he had forgotten his faithfulness. It then follows, that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. As then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant. For whence do we derive our hope of salvation, except from that blessed seed promised to Abraham? Further, why are we called the children of Abraham, except on account of the common bond of faith? Why are the faithful said to be gathered into the bosom of Abraham? Why does Christ say, that some will come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? (Luke 16:22; Matthew 8:11) These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual (Calvin on Jeremiah 31).

Commenting on Ephesians 2:12, Calvin also seems to equate the covenant given through Moses in the two tables with the Abrahamic covenant.  The full comment is included in order to provide context.

12. That at that time ye were without Christ. He now declares that the Ephesians had been excluded, not only from the outward badge, but from everything necessary to the salvation and happiness of men. As Christ is the foundation of hope and of all the promises, he mentions, first of all, that they were without Christ. But for him that is without Christ, there remains nothing but destruction. On Him the commonwealth of Israel was founded; and in whom, but in Himself, could the people of God be collected into one holy society?

A similar observation might be made as to the tables of the promise.  On one great promise made to Abraham all the others hang, and without it they lose all their value: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 22:18.) Hence our apostle says elsewhere, “All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen.” (2 Corinthians 1:20.) Take away the covenant of salvation, and there remains no hope. I have translated τῶν διαθηκῶν by the tables, or, in ordinary legal phrase, the instruments. By solemn ritual did God sanction His covenant with Abraham and his posterity, that he would be their God for ever and ever. (Genesis 15:9.) Tables of this covenant were ratified by the hand of Moses, and intrusted, as a peculiar treasure, to the people of Israel, to whom, and not to the Gentiles, “pertain the covenants.” (Romans 9:4.)

 

from Francis Turretin’s Institutes, 2:267-68:

 

“The Mosaic covenant may be viewed in two aspects: either according to the intention and design of God and in order to Christ; or separately and abstracted from him.  In the latter way, it is really distinct from the covenant of grace because it coincides with the covenant of works and in this sense is called the letter that killeth and the ministration of condemnation, when its nature is spoken of (2 Cor. 3:6, 7).  But it is unwarrantably abstracted here because it must always be considered with the intention of God, which was, not that man might have life from the law or as a sinner might be simply condemned, but that from a sense of his own misery and weakness he might fly for refuge to Christ…The law is said “to be not of faith” (Gal. 3:12), not as taken broadly and denoting the Mosaic economy, but strictly as taken for the moral law abstractly and apart from the promises of grace (as the legalists regarded it who sought life from it).” 

 

from Francis Roberts’s The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible:

 

“That, whereas Paul elsewhere saith: The Law is not of Faith, that is, sets not forth the Righteousness of Faith, Gal. 3.12.  To this I answer three things, viz. I. That, this cannot be meant of the Law, absolutely taken, (for then, you see, Paul should contradict himself, who proves the Righteousness of Faith from the Law, as revealed therein: )  but it must needs be intended of the Law in some limited and restricted sense.  2.  That this cannot be meant of the Law, more generally and complexively taken, for the whole Sinai-Covenant as dispensed by Moses: for in this sense the Law is of Faith, principally intending justification by faith in Christ, as hath been proved: But it may be intended of the Law, More Strictly and abstractively taken, for the meer Preceptive part of the Law, as Declarative of, and in Substance one with the Law of Nature in Adam’s heart, and as abstracted from Moses Administration thereof, in which sense the carnal Jews and Legal Justitiaries did most unusually take the Law: and in this sense the Law is not of Faith, nor held forth the righteousness of Faith in Christ.  3.  If it should be urged, That Paul saying The Law is not of Faith, intends the Law in its latitude as dispensed by Moses, because he adds the tenour of the Law out of Moses (Gal. 3:12), But the man that doth them shall live in them; and that he means not the Law in that restrictive mistaken sense of the Legal Iustitiaries: It may be further replyed; That this Sinai-Covenant was in such sort Administred, as to press upon them the perfect fulfilling of the Law, as most necessary to life and Salvation, denouncing the Curse upon the least failing: but withal revealing to them, that this perfect fulfilling of the Law in their own persons being utterly impossible, he was pleased to accept it in Christ their Surety, perfectly fulfilling it on their behalf, and bearing the curse for their offences, according to the intimation of the may Types and Ceremonies in the Law.  By exacting of them perfect obedience, impossible to them, it takes them off their own bottom, not to seek for righteousness by their own doing: by representing Christs perfect obedience and sufferings as a Remedy, it teaches them to seek for righteousness by Christs perfect obedience, through faith in him.  And this Answer I hold to be most satisfactory, and most agreeable to the intent of the Sinai-Covenant. (Francis Roberts, The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible, 767-68).

 

Roberts and Turretin Both previous authors agree: The law is death to those who seek to keep it as a means of justification an abstract it from the CoG and God’s fulfillment by grace and faith for us as it was intended for the “Chose People” where it is clearly of grace. When Paul is dealing with legalists he speaks of it as death and not of faith. When he speaks of it in its intended use as a tutor it is of faith and a rule of life for the believers OT and NT

 
THE MOSAIC COVENANT AND REPUBLICATION  James Buchanan (1804 – 1870)   Page 77

James Buchanan was similar to Witsius in that he said the Mosaic covenant “had a mixed character, — the ‘Law’ which came by Moses being ‘added’ to the ‘Promise’ which had been given to Abraham. It was neither purely Evangelical, nor purely Legal.” 195

What he meant by this was similar to Hodge’s third point about the covenant, namely that it preached the gospel. Therefore, he employs the language of those who went before him as seeing it added in the interest of the covenant of grace. He says, The addition of the Law was not intended to alter either the ground, or the method, of a sinner’s justification, by substituting obedience to the Law for faith in the Promise; for the Law which was originally ‘ordained unto life’ was now found, by reason of sin, ‘to be unto death;’ but it was now ‘added,’ and promulgated anew with awful sanctions amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Sinai, to impress the Jews, and through them the Church at large, with a sense of the holiness and justice of Him with whom they had to do,—of the spirituality and extent of that obedience which they owed to Him,—of the number and heinousness of their sins,—and of their utter inability to escape the wrath and curse of God, otherwise than by taking refuge in the free promise of His grace.196
So for Buchanan, as for Calvin and the others, the competing principle of works at Sinai was not ultimately opposed to the covenant of grace because it was not intended to function as a competing way to obtain eternal life. This is made clear when he says, “Believers were justified, therefore, under the Law, not by works, but by faith: by faith, they were ‘the children of Abraham,’ and ‘heirs with him of the same promise.’”197

 

Notice his language of “believers under the law” and how it mirrors the

Confession’s and how it comports with this historic use of the law understood broadly.

What, then, is Buchanan’s resolution for the competing principle of works in the Mosaic covenant? He follows Witsius and Hodge and identifies with the national covenant. The Law—considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,—might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace.198

 

———————————————————

Repub, submitted to the OPC Presbytery of NW by Revs Collinridge and McNeil

Chapter Repub – Summary

(C) Each of these  men sited  agree  that  the  Old  Testament  (the  ‘law’  broadly  speaking)  testifies both  to  God’s  grace (expressed in the covenant of grace) as well as his justice (which offers life for obedience) and that this was  conveyed  in  the  form  of  a  works  covenant  (the  ‘law’  strictly  speaking)  given at  Mt  Sinai  by  the hand of Moses. Each of these men agree that this covenant gave life to not one normal man due to his fallen and  sinful  nature,  which  he  inherited  from  Adam.  Each  of  these  men  agree  that  the  law  was given  in  order  to  promote  the  covenant  of  grace  by  shutting  men  up  under  sin  and  directing  them  to Christ

(ME) But this is not the point or problem. The problem is all of those men in history sited, whether they spoke of repub or not, saw the law continuing in its 3rd use that of a rule for sanctification, obedience to God and the law of Christ to the believer. If you don’t then all of this is academic and you are a heretic antinomian.   
So yes there are places the law is used to mean or allegorize: moral law, covenant of works, law of Christ, people of the law, flesh etc. So men may use them different ways at times. This does not mean they were specifically addressing this issue or had it in mind when they chose to use the scripture show one perspective of it, which may not be used to show another they did not have in mind.  But the point is if your choice of zoomed out meaning of the Mosaic law and scriptures leads you to discharge the believers duty to obey the 10 commands as a summary of the law of Christ, the commands mentioned in the NT as our duty, then you are “antinomian” regarding the Christian life and in serious error.  If it tells you heavy metal rock concerts are a sanctifying God glorifying use of your time, I personally would not have much respect for your analysis. For sound doctrine and the knowledge of God should lead to a less worldly more heavenly, more service directed life.

 

(C) Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

 

It is clear what is being ratified here—the two parts of the covenant. On the one hand, we see the stipulations of the covenant, and on the other, we see the oath of the people. The blood binds these together and ratifies them as a covenant. As the blood is sprinkled upon the people, the message is this:

“let our blood be spilled if we fail to do all the Lord has commanded us today.” In other words, they are walking the pathway of death through the slain animals—they are making the maledictory oath.

 

(ME) I don’t think so.   I think the blood was not only their blood for failure, but the blood of atonement given to the visible church just as in Passover and The Lord’s Supper
The blood of the sacrificed lamb or blood on the hyssop branch sprinkled the people clean from their sin.

What good would it be to give them a covenant of works they can’t fulfil without the sign of the gospel with it?

Here is your law, bye, go fail, then later I will give you priests, sacrifices, judges and kings to point you to salvation???   No! Law and gospel cannot be separated in the preaching. The law alone is only condemnation.

 

**Regarding the blood in the cutting of covenants like with Abraham:
Could it be that the blood spilled did not only symbolize the Abraham’s blood for failure, but the blood of atonement given to the visible church, just as in Passover and The Lord’s Supper? After all it was God who walked between the pieces. So it is His blood that would be required, not Adam’s unfit blood.
The blood of the sacrificed lamb or blood on the hyssop branch symbolically sprinkled the people clean from their sin. That had to be grace not CoW.

 

What of the skins for Adam and Eve, the blood atonement is not theirs but of grace pointing to the true Lamb. God does not require the blood of His elect, He substitutes the blood of Christ. So whenever we see a blood covenant and we fail to see it is God who fulfils the covenant with the blood of Christ, we miss the scripture and gospel.

Do you think after reading the book, Moses Sprinkles the blood on the people God says: Here is your law, CoW, bye, go fail.  What good would it be to give the Chosen People, House of Israel, the 10 commands as a covenant of works they can’t fulfil without the sign of the gospel with it?
Then later He gives laws for priests, sacrifices, judges and kings to point them to salvation???   No! Law and gospel cannot be separated in the preaching. The law alone is only condemnation. This Mosaic sprinkling of the Blood is not just the blood of those who fail to keep the covenant but also reminds us of being sprinkled clean for any failure to keep the law by the blood of Christ.

This is the Covenant of Grace again. Why would God switch from CoG with Adam after the fall, and Noah and Abraham all CoG then go back to Cow?  That doesn’t make sense. This is the continuity and continual unfolding of the plan of redemption through the CoG. This a type of the preaching of the kingdom, the law and gospel

*Surely it will be the blood of the reprobate themselves, but to the chosen people, it points to the blood of the Lamb.  We can distinguish systematically CoW and GoG or law and gospel or works and grace but in practice we preach the law and grace in a gospel sermon. There is no righteousness apart from the law.  We cannot see the rightness of Christ without the law.

 

*So there is a way in which these are not so separate in life and preaching and experience.

God does not leave the law and conviction of sin to the flesh, then the Spirit works with the gospel to regenerate. Though we can doctrinally make a law gospel distinction, in the experience of the one being converted, it may seem the work of the law is first and the Spirit must have regenerated them if they have saving repentance not just legal or natural, and then it seems they believe and trust in Christ after. But we err if we try to dissect this and say the regeneration did not occur until they got to the trusting Christ part.

*The Spirit is working to convict us of sin and may regenerate us to repent during the preaching of the law before we get to the atonement offered. How can you break into the timeline of God’s spiritual work and draw lines and say the Spirit can’t work yet or until these gospel words are spoken?

He has predestined the whole sermon and the whole conversion. Shall we say all those who lay for days or even hours under great conviction and have not yet felt relief are all not regenerated, it was only legal flesh repentance until they became sensible the atonement was for them and they have believed in Christ savingly and experience some comfort?

Oh how much damage the weak lawless gospel has done such that we have so long not seen conversions and the work of the Spirit like this that we think because regeneration is and ACT that the conversion experience of the person ought to also be an instantaneous act also. Then they grow in repentance only later, so we force our systematic on to experience.
*How pharisaical to be straining to gnat to divide all this up and dictate when the Spirit could begin to work and when not, what is gracious and what is not, when we should all agree to preach the law and gospel together and let the Spirit do what He will in His secret work in the life of the convert.

*The law has one work or result on the reprobate and a different result to the convert. We need not force it to be only one thing one category. Just as the gospel is death to death or life to life, so the law.

The law has a purpose to the visible covenant people especially the elect, and that is to prepare them for the gospel and the spirit is working through both to the elect, though not to the reprobate.

This is real. This is not the same, but as real, mystical and spiritual as grace given to us in the sacraments old and new.

Rom 3:1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

3  What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar

 

*If this means anything, then this says there was an advantage a benefit to the visible covenant people over those who did not have the law and gospel given to them. And the visible covenant signs and types and allegories, even the law and prophets. Else it means nothing at all!!! There would be no advantage to the Jew.  This is covenant theology, the promise to our children. This is what the Baptist misses and what allows one to be dispensational.  If you prefer to say the advantage was not gracious but legal until they trusted in Messiah fine if that is as far as it goes.

When Machen criticizes Ernest De Witt Burton’s commentary on Galatians, it is not because Burton sees the law being given from grace or as part of the CoG, but because the liberal actually makes “the grace of God” refer to the giving of the law to Israel. Paul, he says, is answering an attack of the opponents to the effect that he was making of no account “the special grace of God to Israel in giving them the law.”
Machen is not saying the Mosaic law does not proceed from grace, or that it is not part of the CoG, but the full context is that Machen is saying Burton is wrong for saying the law adds works to grace in justification. Machen like others is also opposing a combining of faith and works for justification just as Paul was. To try to take this and say as the Repub proponents did, that Machen is opposing the idea Mosaic law is from grace or part of the CoG is wrong.

(C) Israel is a Typological Adam in a New Eden

Another angle of divine revelation we have to account for is the correlation between the Adamic situation in Eden and the situation of Israel in the Promised Land.

 

(ME) Now wait a minute!!!  Israel could not merit salvation for anyone.  Israel is a type of the people of God, the elect. The fact their covenant was not an individual one does not mean they become a type of Adam. Israel’s covenant is a national one and not a universal one like the CoW. Israel is a type of the visible church, the visible covenant people or the elect chosen people of God!!!

 

The CoW was universal and individual. Adam failed for all people but also for each person. And there was no way 1 person in Israel could keep the Mosaic law and merit the land for himself alone. The Mosaic law was national not individual. The COW and CoG affect the individual and save or damn them.  Not so the Mosaic, it was national in its land promise.

 

We can say that the Abrahamic promise is a type of the CoG in that it points to a heavenly Jerusalem, a promised land for those heirs of Abraham united to his Seed by adoption.

We could say the Mosaic has some typology here of the CoG too, as a visible covenant people, but not every individual is saved in Israel nor in the visible church.
(C)He makes Israel His unique possession by redeeming her and bringing her to His holy mountain. He gives His Law to Israel as a great blessing.

He sets His name upon Israel. Israel learns who Yahweh is

Still sounds like the elect to me not Adam
(C) Like Adam who was God’s son, Israel is God’s son (Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15) on probation under the law within the Promised Land. If Israel obeys, he is blessed. If Israel disobeys, he will die as he is be exiled to the east like Adam. Then God’s sword of justice will be unleashed against Israel and His wrath poured out upon him (Lev 26:25, 33, 36; Deut 28:15ff; 32:40-42; 2 Chron 36:16).217

 

(ME)  Ok I see how you get to Adam, after they are in the promised land but not before. So they change from the type of chosen people after crossing Jordan to be Adam.

But now we have My people, the CHOSEN people being able to stay in the promised land, heaven, by works?
And how is this the gospel?  How is this the plan of redemption being revealed to us in scripture.  Let’s zoom in to the history, then how do all the stories of the people in Israel point us to Christ and become types of Christ if the people are all Adam under a CoW???

It’s a messed up allegory going back and forth and a mess like dispies divide rather than a smooth clean allegory of the Plan of redemption: people come out of Egypt by the Passover, grace not works, and they stay in the land by grace not their obedience which failed, they are the visible covenant people containing the elect within. The history of individual stories all show us the failing of people by their own efforts and needing a savior and being pointed to Him and the culmination.

I guess you don’t go to hell for missing the whole allegory and type of scripture and the covenants, but it makes it a confusing mess to preach and teach from and hard for congregants to learn, and it takes you 159 pages to say what is summed up in a couple paragraphs by an excellent minister who survived Kline at Westminster:

 

“The whole idea that the law is a tutor that drives the sinner to Christ is based upon the idea, that when the law is preached it exposes our sin, and shows us how hopeless our situation is under the law.  It is only after the sinner has been crushed by the weight of their sin, under the preaching of the law, and stripped of their self confidence that the gospel can be viewed as good news.  Therefore it is essential that the faithful preaching of the word include both the preaching of the law, and the gospel.  Once sinners have been confronted with the righteous demands of the law, and they have been convicted of their sin, they need to be called to faith.  This is the general call, but in order for this call be effectual the Holy Spirit has to effectually call them to faith and in so doing, united them to Christ, whereby they are born of the Spirit.  Only after they have been born of the Spirit, is there true repentance and faith.  First, God must sovereignly work by His Spirit through the preaching of the gospel.

This is why our confessions refer to the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments as the means of grace, because it is through these means that Christ is held out and communicated to sinners.  This doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t work through the preaching of the law, to convict and crush, but it is only through the ministry of the gospel that a sinner is born again and comes to faith.

 

Now once a sinner has been effectually called, and born again, the Spirit is at work re-orientating the sinners desires, and affections and bending their will.  In this process the sinner will begin to be offended by their own sin, this is a part of repentance.  When a sinner begins to see their sin the way God sees their sin, they can’t help but turn from their sin and turn to Christ in true faith.  As a result of the new birth and the re-orientation of the sinners desires, they will begin to delight not only in Jesus Christ, but in God’s law.

Even after a sinner is born again and they begin to delight in the law of God according to the inward man, they continue to struggle against their flesh.  This is why believers need to be under the clear and pointed preaching of the law, in its different uses and the gospel.  The Holy Spirit continues to work through the ministry of the law to bring about the conviction of sin, but the renewal and the transformation comes through the preaching of the gospel, in other words the means of grace. 

 

I agree with you that in some reformed circles, there is an unwillingness to preach the law with force, in its first use.  It is possible that some ministers are uncomfortable preaching the law in terms of its third use as well.  Personally, I don’t understand this, but I have noticed that for some ministers, union with Christ is a big shark that has swallowed everything in its path, including any kind of meaningful application of God’s law to the lives of His people.”

———————
But what we know is clear, we are to obey the commandments. If you end up missing this you have wrongly understood the simplicity of the covenant allegory.  What was the problem in Galatia?  It was adding works to faith. Not works alone. They were not seeking to replace faith, but add works as the RC and others did. He repels this saying we can’t be justified by works/flesh, nor :

Gal 3:3  Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

So we must see not just the start or part but that it was a completed act of justification we do not have to perfect or complete justification over time by our flesh as those who hold to an ongoing justification would say.
And also see sanctification by faith though we participate, but not in the old way, but because the law is written on out desires in the new covenant.
Over the last several years I think I have done adequate research on this subject to gain clarity for myself and to explain it simply to others.  It is highly complicated and we speak in different ways at different times and should have the freedom to do so within the limits of the Confessional and proper hermeneutics explained above, and not be taking authors out of context to be saying something they did not intend.

What I have learned is most important in this, is not to mix the word law up with Cov of Works, to see the Cow was in the garden and no more in scripture except for Christ to fulfill for His people, and the final judgment all reprobate are under from it. And most of all I think we should be concerned with antinomianism and the simplicity of our need to keep the commandments if we love the Lord. If your interpretation leads you to loosen any of these commands it is heresy.  Jesus taught the Sabbath so it is one of His commandments, inescapable. Good enough for the apostle of love is good enough for me.

1Jn_5:3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Joh_14:15  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Joh_14:21  Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Joh_15:10  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

As it agrees with the OT saints  who delighted in the commandments and law. Does our consistent flow of adding gentiles into the House of Israel into Christ the vine our covenant theology break off here in obedience and delight?
Neh_1:5  And I said, “O LORD God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments,

Psa_119:47  for I find my delight in your commandments, which I love.

Psa_119:48  I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statutes.

Psa_119:127  Therefore I love your commandments above gold, above fine gold.

Dan_9:4  I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments,

 

—————————————   My more final concise draft below.

 

Mosaic Law and its Relationships to the CoG & CoW and the Word Law

 

Preface: I think there are a few very powerful original insights and defenses included in the following synopsis that I have not read elsewhere… yet. But then I thought a lot of what I had in my original drafts were original thoughts and as I have gone back to read and research them to make more sure this is proper interpretation, because my analytical mind does like the” chop up into neat packages but I have sadly found I am just a Calvinist to a great extent on this subject after coming to my conclusions and then checking with what he has written, as well as others throughout history have had many of these same insights hopefully through the enlightenment of the Spirit which is a great encouragement to me. So now sadly in opposition to a minister I greatly respect I am able to stand soundly on the word that the Mosaic law and covenant was “as originally intended in its given context” a gracious act to the elect among the visible covenant people. Along with that, it was an “advantage” to the Jew, which I can only label to be some sort of visible covenant gracious act. And by gracious I mean no more than the following.

I do not understand how predestination and the Spirit work through my will and work, nor do I understand the mystical and spiritual way in which grace is dispensed to us through the sacraments. But I believe it. Likewise the promise is still to believers and their children, and there is some mystical “Advantage or benefit” to the visible covenant people who sit under the oracles of God.

It is in this way that I cannot understand or fully explain what I believe: the Mosaic covenant was given to the people of the nation as a gracious act.  Of course it was a part of or under the CoG, but I mean more than that, something mystical to us. And that it was not a CoW any more than maybe secondarily to be a reminder of it to the people but still as a means to tutor them to Christ. The fact it did not do that in those who did not have faith does not take away or detract from this. His same original Mosaic gracious promise of entering His rest still stands to “all who will believe” today.

Heb 4:1  Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2  For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3  For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,'” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Rom 3:1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  2  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.  3  What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar…

 

So the fact not every Israelite was converted by the gracious giving of the law and gospel in the old covenant, does not make it a CoW or take away the graciousness or the free offer intended through Christ in it.
We hold to a free offer or indiscriminate offer of the gospel to every person even if we see it as a command, or both, knowing that not all will obtain it, and only the elect will. This does not change it such that we do not “plead with men” as Paul did. Our limited finite minds may not be able to satisfactorily analyze and understand these things but let us accept them anyway and submit our understanding in humility to God and the perspicuity of His word. He has given us what we need to know and share. Let us be more about the distribution of the gospel and advancing the kingdom, breaking through the gates of hell than straining gnats, and 2Ti 2:14  Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

The moral law is God’s revelation of his character and holiness and the morality he requires of every person in dealing with each other and with him. The moral law was summarized in the 10 Commandments. We generally believe there are three uses of the moral law.

 

In the garden Adam was under the covenant works. One part of the covenant of works was to live by God’s moral law. But there was more to the covenant of works than just the moral law. Some specifics were: he was to tend the garden and he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

 

Adam was made to be a legal representative for each and every human being for the Cov of Works.

Adam broke the Cov of Works and should have been put to death.

But God made a sacrifice for him, shed the blood of an animal and covered them with skins which pointed to and was accepted based on the obedience and atonement of the Savior to come that was announced at that time.

God gave the promise of the coming one who would crush the head of Satan. This is the covenant of grace.  Christ would also be made under the Cov of Works and as a legal representative for His Chosen people with the opportunity to fulfill it and satisfy God.
No one else was ever under the CoW in this way that Adam and Christ were, with an opportunity to fulfill it for them self or others. Everyone else is under the CoW only as it is a curse, bondage, judgment and death, its end result.

 

So Adam and Eve out of the Garden are now under the covenant of grace and they are still to keep the moral law.

No longer do they keep the law AS A Covenant of Works, but now as part of the covenant of grace in its three uses. It is a rule of life for them under the CoG and just as it has been for all of the people God chose through history to be in the covenant of grace, Enoch, Noah who was baptized in the ark, by the sprinkling of water from above while the wicked were immersed to death.
Then Abraham was still to keep the moral law as part of the covenant of grace that he was under.

God made a covenant with/for Abraham or “renewed” the Cov of Grace with him.

This was demonstrated by the sacrifice cutting the covenant while Adam was asleep and not only unable to do any works, and he was unable to even “accept Jesus”; while God himself had to walk between the pieces because He only could fulfill the covenant for them.

Therefore this covenant was gracious and this is the covenant of grace still ongoing,

though there is slightly different way in which it is being administered through Abraham.
The animal was killed and there was blood as a sign of judgment and death for failure to keep the covenant. But didn’t that also remind us of the skins for Adam and Christ’s death and blood for us? God showing what it would take to fulfill the Cov of Grace for Abraham. Not his works, but God’s work.

Maybe we could even say that it’s a reminder or reflection of the failed covenant of works that everyone is still under for judgment and death, unless they are chosen to be in the Cov of Grace.

But this is Cov of Grace even though this had the covenant threat of death for non-performance and the killed animal, this was not a CoW.

And Abraham is still to obey the moral law as a rule or guide for life like all those before him and after him.

 

Similarly as we come to the descendents of the flesh being taken out of Egypt, who are these people?

They are Called Out ones or an Assembly of people God has brought out of slavery and bondage, which  was a type of being under the curse and judgment of the covenant of works.

The Chosen people were brought out through the Red Sea where they were baptized on dry ground, maybe some overspray sprinkling from the waters held back above them, while the Egyptians were immersed to death. Now the people are made free, no longer under the CoW and curse, as a type, not necessarily as individuals for eternity. The true believers among them are individually freed from the covenant of works and are not under its judgment and curse, they are under the covenant of grace for eternity.
But the whole body of people are freed from bondage and called My people, Chosen people, the children of God. So they are a type of the elect, or they are the visible covenant people, the visible church.

God administers the covenant of grace through a visible group of people from now on, a covenant people.
And still the Israelites, just as Adam after the garden and every one since who has been under the covenant of grace, are to continue to keep the moral law.

That same moral law is part of or a piece of the covenant of grace, just as it was a part of the covenant of works.

The fact that the moral law was a part of the covenant of works does not mean that the moral law IS the covenant of works.

It is just contained in the covenant of works just like it is part of or contained in the covenant of grace.  The fact both covenants contain the moral law does not make them the same Covenant or make the law belong only to one of the covenants! We do not equate the law with CoW though sometimes it is used in that sense or typologically in that way.

 

So moral law has already been there continuing for the ethnic descendents in Egypt, but now comes Sinai, where the moral law or a summary of it, gets written in stone with the finger of God Himself to more press on the people that this is who God is and that it is God’s permanent holy rule of life for them, as well as the other uses of that law, to warn of judgment for violating God’s character and restrain evil among the people by the threatenings of judgment and punishment.
This is still under the administration of the Cov of grace with the Chosen people. But now as Israel becomes a nation, the “old covenant” administration of the CoG changes again.
Next the national laws get added. Paul tells us very clearly why these laws were added and that they were only until the Messiah came.  Gal 3:19  Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made

So the new laws that were ADDED, we ask: what were they added to?

There is no covenant of works to add them to because the covenant of works has already been settled by Adam’s failure for every individual person.

There is no one anymore who is given a chance to fulfill the covenant of works and make satisfaction with God. Every individual is already under the CURSE, Judgement and Death and wrath of the CoW. There is No way for people to change this for any individual or group. So no one else is given a CoW to fulfill, or put under a CoW. They already are under it as curse and final judgement and the sentence later to be carried out.

So the new national laws, civil and ceremonial, are ADDED to the Cov of Grace.

So even these laws are not a covenant of works but are part of the covenant of grace being used by the spirit to convict them and bring them to Christ. So not really a type of or republication of the CoW!!!

These were Added by God for the intended purpose, not of being a CoW, but because of the sin and to better show them their inability to please God and tutor them to seek a savior and the gospel.
So even this temporal national law which is to be abolished with the nation, is also administered through the Cov of Grace, no one being able to perform perfectly and not given as a CoW, but a tutor to the gospel and Savior.
One may say, well how are they grace if no one is saved by them. Paul tells us it is covenant grace or graciousness or Advantage, some benefit the Jews had by virtue of being in the visible covenant people.  Rom 3:1  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

2  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

3  What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

4  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar

So God says, the fact not all the Jews made use of this advantage or were saved does not lessen the gracious offer of the gospel to especially the covenant people. So yes it is still a gracious offer or covenant offer or advantage to hear the law and prophets, whatever term you want to use here, it was clearly given as part of the Cog.

*If this means anything, then this says there was an advantage a benefit to the visible covenant people over those who did not have the law and gospel given to them. And the visible covenant signs and types and allegories, even the law and prophets. Else it means nothing at all!!! There would be no advantage to the Jew.

This is covenant theology, the promise to our children. This is what the Baptist misses and what allows one to be dispensational.  If you prefer to say the advantage was not gracious but legal until they trusted in Messiah, fine if that is as far as it goes. But the law was an advantage not a CoW
So the law is not against the “promises of God”, not against Grace or the CoG.

Rom 7:12  So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13  Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

 

The other nations did not have the law given to them graciously as the Israelites did, so they did not see their need of a savior, so they were lost. The unchosen were not given the gracious gift of the Mosaic law to tutor them to Christ. They were under the CoW and the justice and judgment of it, but without the “Advantages of the Jews” so it is only judgment and death to them even if they did not have the law given to them as the Israelites did.   Rom 2:12  For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

These ADDED laws contained in ordinances were only UNTIL Christ.
The moral law does not end when Christ comes, it continues on for the people of God, the visible covenant people and especially the true believers, the elect, being written on their heart in the new covenant administration of the CoG.
Now don’t these laws with their: do this and live or break the law and die, sound just like the covenant with Abraham, the animal killed, blood spilt, and death to the breaker?  Yet that was not CoW, with Abraham it was CoG renewed or reminded.

So why would one then think just because a part of this administration included the sacrifices and laws and threatenings do this and live, break it and die covenant with the Israelites had to be a CoW or a republishing of the CoW and not the GoG as we know it clearly was as see the same threats of judgment and blood before?

Next Christ comes and does not teach old covenant ordinances and laws, but preaches the Gospel of the Kingdom which is by grace through faith but will be administered with better “promises”.

The moral law is still required as a rule for life and Jesus teaches people how they are really to keep the moral law or 10 commands.  He tells them this moral law they are to keep is even more broad than they understood. He teaches them when God says No Murder this also means don’t hate without a cause. No adultery means don’t look on a person to lust. And he tells them how to properly keep the Sabbath, deeds of necessity and mercy being allowed.
He corrects the error of those who thought they were justified by keeping the law or being born as the ethnic seed of Abraham.

He tells them No, it is by faith alone, but that they must still keep the moral law as a way of life and bear fruit or their faith is not real. The fruit is proof or evidence of the faith and union in the vine.

Not a lot of changes yet, some ethnic Jews believe and continue in the same faith of old, accepting Christ as messiah. Then He resurrects and ascends and sends His Spirit to dwell in the believers. This is a transition time administered with many strange things occurring, signs and wonders to confirm the Apostles words to be the Word of God.

Peter and Paul get taught that the promise (covenant) for Abraham to make him a father of many nations is now coming to fruition and they are to take the gospel to the nations. The new covenant administration of the same Cov of Grace is developing but some Jewish believers or false believers begin to teach heresy saying:

that along with faith, they must keep some of the old covenant administration laws also.

It is in this context of the Judaizers seeking to be justified by the law or by adding law along with faith for justification, that Paul extracts the 10 commands or moral law out of the context and intended use it was given through the Cov of Grace to the House of Israel, and tells them that to try to keep the law for justification, or to try to use it in the Adamic way as a Cov of Works, the law can only bring death and judgment.
Because you can’t keep it perfectly. There is no mixing grace and works as a Cov of grace and a cov of works. You pick one or the other.  You can’t require some works for justification in the CoG. It is all of grace through faith.

But of course we can live in accord with the moral law in the Cov of Grace, not perfectly and our imperfect obedience is accepted through Christ’s atonement and imputed righteousness.
But our works are not meritorious because even our imperfect obedience is by grace and the Spirit in us working to will and to do, even though we also co-operate with the Spirit and work. Phil 2:13

It was the erring Judaizers who were trying to be justified by the flesh, by works, by the law or old covenant laws, that causes Paul to speak of the law as death and judgement. As a CoW. The law if not of faith, IN THIS USEAGE.

But Paul also says: Gal 3:21  Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not!
The law is not contrary to the CoG or grace or faith when seen as it was intended by God as a tutor to Christ. But you are misusing the law, seeking to be justified by it, thus making it not of faith!!

 

The fact in this context Paul speaks of the law this way does not mean that the moral was a CoW when it was given as part of the CoG delivered to Adam, or the renewal of the CoG with Abraham or Moses.

The law is of Grace, in the Cov of Grace

Gal_3:12  But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

When one is trying to be justified by it and it is of wrath and justice if you try to keep it as a CoW.

So we can rightly speak of the law either way, as Cov of works or as Cov of grace, but we need to contextualize it when we do, not leave it hanging and ambiguous which has created confusion.

To take an author who is speaking as Paul did in one place from the perspective of the law for justification and then apply it to all other places and uses is wrong and a misinterpretation of the author! It forces on him and idea he never had.    As quoted in the footnote ¹

How can God say:

Rom 7:12  So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
1Jn_5:3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

6  And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.

Gal_6:2  Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

And also say:

Gal 3:10  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

11  Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12  But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

13  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—
Note Paul says in Gal, …who rely on the law – for justification!!  But that is not the Law’s purpose!
The one sees it through the Cov of Grace when we speak of it for obedience and a rule of life, and one speaks of a MISUSE of the law seeking to be justified by it. A Misuse that is in the Cov of Grace, when you seek to be justified by it, for that is to make it a Cov of Works.

Else the gospel of the kingdom could not be presented this way:
Mat 19:16  And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17  And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18  He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19  Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Note that Jesus told him to keep the moral law, which should drive him to see his sin and need for a savior and be willing to give up all for that.  Just as the gospel is said to be:

2Co 2:15  For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16  to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

So when we preach the law it comes either as part of the Cov of Grace to lead a chosen person to Christ and life or it will be from the Cov of Works condemning him to death and wrath. And when we preach the gospel message we must call people to obey the law and see their sin so they have a need for a gospel.
One can even preach the law from the perspective of the CoW and that people are under that by nature and the only way out from under that curse is through Christ and the gospel who calls them to faith and repentance to obedience to that law as a way of life. So the 3 uses are displayed.

The law and gospel are distinct, but they are to be proclaimed together. And the Spirit works in regeneration through the law to bring conviction and repentance to a person and show them their need of a savior.
(Pick whatever timeline order you want to legislate the human experience or working of the Spirit in a man to be as you will), but the Spirit is working through both.

 

So back to Sinai. Was the law given as a type or republication of the old finished Cov of Works?  No heaven forbid!! That would be to lay on the Jews a works system and point them to seeking salvation by works. That was the Jewish misuse of the law, misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. Paul has to correct this idea. It was given to them in the CoG graciously to use to bring them to Christ, by seeing their sin and restraining evil and giving them a guide and rule for obedience to live by.

 

So the typology to the Cov people is that of the gospel message. Here is the law, your sin, now seek a savior.  Just as we would expect it to be!!! Consistent with the plan of redemption taught all through scripture and all of the stories in the history that all point to this same thing, our inability and need for a savior.  The scriptures are called the Law and Prophets, they point us to inability and Christ!!

So we can make all kids of analogies but that does not make them Biblically sound analogies or allegories. One may say the covenant people are a type of the elect as brought out of Egypt being taken to the promised land, but then once in it they become a type of Adam under the CoW, but they are still the Chosen My People who are not under the Cov of Works, so the typology gets all messed up and inconsistent.   Just because you can look at one small aspect in isolation from all of scripture and make an analogy does not make that a Biblical or useful analogy, or certainly not the main intended typology, Biblical Theology. Same with the Law, we can say it was a CoW for Adam but to then say, see here is the law so it must be a republication of the CoW again is faulty.

Sure if we speak precisely and extract the law out of the context of being given to the Chosen people to tutor them to Christ, we can hold it up and say, it may be a reminder of the CoW that the UNCHOSEN people are under. Or that unconverted people in the Visible covenant are under. Or warning to be sure you are in Christ and not still under Egyptian Bondage.
But these are no great thing.  We already know that. Paul only taught this way about the law to oppose error and legalism. It was not part of the gospel message or plan of redemption. It is only used that way as apologetic to those who would promote a works justification error.

Believers have the law as a guide for obedience to live as God wants us to. It is the same law but we see it as a law of Christ to follow Him, live as He did.

—————-