I was cleaning out my filing cabinet and ran across some correspondence concerning law and grace.  Over ten years ago a dear Reformed Baptist brother wrote me and said I had totally misunderstood Covenant Theology and therefore was misrepresenting what it teaches.  He sent me two quotations from well known covenant theologians and assured me I would be straightened out if I would read and digest their "clear representations" of what true Covenant Theology teaches.  The following is my reply. First I will print the articles and then give you my reply. The bolded parts are mine and will be used in my response so note them carefully.

    First quotation:



"It may be remarked, that the Law of the Ten Commandments was promulgated to Israel from Sinai in the form of a covenant of works.  Not that it was the design of God to renew a Covenant of works with Israel, or to put them upon seeking life by their own obedience to the law; but the law was published to them as a covenant of works, to show them that without a perfect righteousness, answering to all the demands of the law, they could not be justified before God; and that, finding themselves wholly destitute of that righteousness, they might be excited to take hold of the Covenant of Grace, in which a perfect righteousness for their justification is graciously provided.  The Sinai transac­tion was a mixed dispensation.  In it the Covenant of grace was published, as appears from these words in the preface standing before the commandments:  `I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage'; and from the promulgation of the ceremonial law at the same time.  But the moral law, as a covenant of works, was also dis­played, to convince the Israelites of their sinfulness and misery, to teach the necessity of atonement, and to lead them to embrace by faith the blessed Mediator, the seed of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed.  The Law, therefore, was published at Sinai as a covenant of works, in subservience to the Covenant of GRACE, and the law is still published in subservi­ence to the gospel, as a `schoolmaster to bring sinners to Christ, that they may be justified by faith' (Gal. 3:24)."

    From:  The Reformed Faith, by Robert Shaw, p. 195.

 

Second quotation:

          "God set up the law for the Israelites as a covenant of grace with Evangelical offers of Grace to bring them to Christ; but at the same time, He kept it in the form of a covenant of works, that it might be the more effectual to drive men to Christ."

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

          "The Lord's intention in giving the Law was double, unto the carnal Jews to set forth the old covenant which they had broken; and yet unto the believing Jews it did darkly shadow and set forth unto them the covenant of grace made with Christ . . . and therefore it was delivered AFTER A SORT IN THE FORM OF A COVENANT OF WORKS, not in God's intention, but by their own corruption . . . Now if the Lord will not give it as a covenant, why does He not propound it as a rule, and lay down the PRECEPTS without any such terms of a covenant, in which men should attain life by doing, but by believing?  Thus the Lord did, that the TERMS of the first Covenant might be promulgated to the world, and that they that did still desire to be under the Law, might not plead ignorance of the terms that God required in the Law."

.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

          "It was thus God's purpose towards men in the times of the Old Covenant 'by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant . . . to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness,' and to 'drive them to Christ.'"

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

          "In the light of all the foregoing, therefore, it may be concluded that the Puritan opinion about the place of the Law in the Covenant of Grace is that its rigorous demands provide that rough surface which the 'Spirit of bondage' can use to prepare the heart for the reception of grace and liberty."

    The Grace of Law, by Ernest Kevan, pp. 129-130.

 

    Dear Brother:   I have carefully read the two quotations you gave me from Shaw and Kevan.  You contend that these quotations prove that I do not understand Covenant Theology and that I have "oversimplified their position."  I think the quotations demonstrate the utter confusion of the authors.  Among other things, your quotations state the following very clearly.

1. The Law at Sinai was and was not a Covenant of Works at the same time.

2. The Law as Sinai was definitely published in the form of a Covenant of Works, but God never intended it to be treated as such.

3. It was only by the carnal corrupting of God's intentions by the unbelieving Jews that allowed them to view the Law at Sinai as a Covenant of Works.

4. The Covenant, which was only a transaction, at Sinai "dis­played" and "pub­lished" both the Covenant of grace and the Covenant of works, but in reality it was neither and both at the same time.

          If you are saying, 'John, that is double talk; you are not making an ounce of sense,' I wholeheartedly agree with you.  However, my 'nonsense' is exactly what Shaw and Kevan are saying!  I beg of you to take time to carefully read both the quotations and my notations.  I do not believe that I have 'put words in their mouths,' but I have merely stated what they are actually saying.  I believe the quotations are one mass of confusion and contradiction.  They are saying, 'Yes, the Law is a Covenant of Works, but no, it is not.  It must be in order to convict sinners unto salvation, but it cannot be for it is given to a people already redeemed.'

          Let me ask one simple question and let your two quotations give the answer.  I am not caricaturizing.  The following is exactly what Shaw and Kevan are really saying:

Question:     Was, or was not, the Law given at Mt. Sinai as a covenant of works?

Answer: Yes, it was absolutely a covenant of works.  "The law . . . was promulgated to Israel in the form of a covenant of works . . ."

          However, no, it was not really "the design of God to renew a covenant of works with Israel . . ."

          Nonetheless, it is perfectly clear that "the law was published as a covenant of works . . .", and it is just as clear that the Law was not a covenant of works and God never intended it to be received as such.

          You see, the law was really ". . . the     covenant of grace [that] was published" in the form of a covenant of works in the Sinai transaction [it is called a transac­tion so we do not confuse it with a real covenant].

          It is quite clear that it was actually "the moral law," even though it was actually "published as a cove­nant of works (but remember, it really was not an actual cove­nant, but was only published in the form of a covenant)," in subservience to the covenant of grace that was promulgated in the law at Sinai.

          To put it in simple terms and clear language, we may say, "God set up the law for the Israelites as a covenant of grace . . . in the form of a covenant of works . . ."

          Our final answer to the original question may be summed up as follows:  "Yes, the law given at Sinai was a covenant of works because "it was delivered after a sort (everyone will clearly know what that means) in the form of a covenant of works," but god's intention was that it was to be under­stood as a covenant of grace.  It is inexcusable of the Jews to treat the Law like a covenant of works just because it was published in the form of a covenant of works.

          It is quite clear   ". . . that the Lord will not give it as a covenant . . ." when His real intention is that it be only a rule even though He gave it in terms of a covenant.

          In other words, the Law at Sinai absolutely was given as a covenant of works as long as you understand that it really was not a covenant of works, but in reality that it was the covenant of grace published in the form of a covenant of works, at least "after a sort."

          My dear brother, I do not believe that I have "oversimplified" anything.  I do believe that your quotations shows the utter confusion and double talk that follows when you try to make a biblical covenant of works actually be a theological  covenant of grace while claiming it is not even a real covenant at all but only an "administration" of a non-covenant published in the form of a covenant.  

          That is theological mumbo jumbo.  It sounds like the old "shell game" with its "Yes, it really is, but actually it is not."  I am sorry, but I think you proved my point better than I ever could have done.  If I would have had the least question that Covenant Theology was built on non-biblical presuppositions, Shaw and Kevan would have easily convinced me my suspicions were correct. My dear brother, do you honestly in your heart believe what they said?  I believe the Jew understood the Mosaic Covenant far better than any of your Covenant theologians!  The Jews were not wrong in treating the Law as a Covenant, nor were they wrong in believing it to be a covenant of works.  Their tragic mistake was their arrogant self-righteousness in ever believing that they could fulfill the demands of the Covenant.



          Were the Israelites, or were they not, "under the law" as a Covenant of life and death?  Of course they were!  Was not the "relationship" established at Sinai based on obedience to specific covenant terms?  You know that it was.  What determined when, and on whom, the penalty of death for 'breaking the Covenant' would fall if there was no real covenant of works in effect?  If Sinai was not a real life and death Covenant, then how could it function with the sword to 'kill' both physically and also spiritually in 'preparing for faith'?   John G. Reisinger

 

P.S.  The good brother never answered my letter.