The Upper Register

Is the Mosaic Covenant an Administration of the Covenant of Grace?

As my readers know, I hold to republication – the view that the works principle in the pre-fall covenant with Adam was republished at the typological level in the Mosaic economy. Because of this, many ask, “Can you affirm that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace?” Sometimes the question comes with an attorney-like insistence, Yes or No! But this is not a question that can be answered Yes or No without qualifications. So here is my best attempt to answer that question.

I think it is valid to say that the Mosaic covenant was a “unique” administration of the covenant of grace. I borrow the term “unique” from Michael Horton who uses it to take account of Paul’s teaching that the law was a temporary guardian until Christ (Gal 3:19-24). As Dr. Horton wrote in a recent four-views book: “The Sinai covenant is a unique administration of the covenant of grace in that it offers a parenthetical-typological system for the church’s adolescence.”[1]

What makes it a unique administration of the covenant of grace is that it has a broad and a narrow aspect. The Mosaic covenant in the broad sense is the Mosaic economy as a whole, that is, the Mosaic economy as continuing the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:17) and as including the sacrificial system which provided a means of atonement for sin. In that broad sense, the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. But it also has a narrow aspect, and that is what makes it unique. The Mosaic covenant in the narrow sense is the same as Paul’s term “the law,” the commandments along with the offered blessings for obedience and curses threatened for disobedience (Lev 18:5; Deut 28). In this sense the law was a temporary guardian until the Seed should come. It was given to drive Israel to Christ and thus for an ultimately gracious purpose.

This language of the broad and narrow sense of “Mosaic covenant” is fairly standard. Dr. Horton says it derives from Calvin:

Calvin himself acknowledges these two senses: “The law has a twofold meaning; it sometimes includes the whole of what has been taught by Moses, and sometimes that part only which was peculiar to his ministration, which consisted of precepts, rewards, and punishments …. Whenever the word law is thus strictly taken, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ: and then we must consider what the law contains, as separate from the gospel.”[2]

In their helpful book on covenant theology, Michael Brown and Zach Keele explain it this way:

To understand the Mosaic covenant properly, we must view it in both its broad and narrow senses. In its broad sense, the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace …. In its narrow sense, however, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of law …. We must first focus on the Mosaic covenant in its narrower sense (that is, law) to fit it properly into God’s overall purpose of the covenant of grace …. God gave the strict Mosaic covenant to show Israel and all humanity that no man can be justified by the works of the law (Rom 3:19-20).[3]

Complementary to the broad vs. narrow language, there is Meredith Kline’s language of the two layers or strata of the Mosaic economy.

At the same time, Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum. There was a foundational stratum having to do with the personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation and this underlying stratum, continuous with all preceding and succeeding administrations of the Lord’s Covenant of Grace with the church, was informed by the principle of grace (cf., e.g., Rom 4:16). Because the Abrahamic covenant of promise found continuity in the Mosaic order at this underlying level, it was not abrogated by the latter. The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum.[4]

Now perhaps another follow-up question may arise: “Is the entire Mosaic covenant, in both its narrow sense and in its broader sense, an administration of the covenant of grace?” I can affirm that, but I would want to clarify the two distinct ways in which “the narrow sense” and “the broader sense” are related to the covenant of grace.

I affirm that the Mosaic covenant in the broader sense (the entire Mosaic dispensation or economy) is an administration of the covenant of grace. There are a myriad of ways we see this. We see it in the prologue to the Decalogue, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” We see it in the intercession of Moses who appealed to the Abrahamic promise (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27). We see it in the fact that the two tablets of the law were placed inside the ark of the covenant under the mercy seat (Exod 25:16; 40:20; Deut 10:2, 5; Heb 9:4). But most clearly we see it in the Levitical sacrificial system (the Passover Lamb, the Day of Atonement, etc.), which was a sacramental means of grace by which the Israelites received ahead of time, by faith, the benefits of the work of the Messiah to come. As Kline notes, “Elements of redemptive grace were present in and around the transaction [of the Sinaitic  covenant],” and he goes on to cite the prologue of the Decalogue and the location of the tablets under the mercy seat as two chief examples.[5]

But what about the Mosaic covenant in the narrow sense? Can it also rightly be called an administration of the covenant of grace? I can see how it could, but I would want to clarify what that means. It is a foundational Reformed teaching that the law (“Do this and live”) is not, in and of itself, the covenant of grace. The Mosaic law is a republication of the principle of the covenant of works. The law says, “Do this and live” (Lev 18:5). The gospel (the covenant of grace) says, “Christ has done it; receive it and live.” But although the law is not the gospel, it was given to advance the covenant of grace. It does this by showing us that we cannot be justified by the works of the law and thus driving us to Christ. The law was a temporary guardian, the historical matrix for the incarnation, so that the Seed might be born under it, obey it, endure its curse, and thus fulfill it in our place (Gal 3:13; 4:4; Rom 10:4).

Horton quotes Geerhardus Vos:

As Vos states, “The covenant with Israel served in an emphatic manner to recall the strict demands of the covenant of works … It truly contained the content of the covenant of works. But—and one should certainly note this—it contains this content as made serviceable for a particular period of the covenant of grace.”[6]

Horton then adds his own comment fleshing this out:

Although the Sinaitic covenant is based on law, it is only such in the interests of holding out the promise of the covenant of grace. The ultimate promise of a worldwide family of Abraham in a renewed creation is unconditional in its basis, while the continuing existence of the national theocracy as a type of that everlasting covenant depended on Israel’s obedience. Therefore, the Sinai covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace in that it served to further the interests of that gracious promise.[7]

With that qualification—“in that it served to further the interests of that gracious promise”—the law can be called an administration of the covenant of grace, even though the law, in and of itself, is not the covenant of grace. Kline put it this way: “The Law covenant was a sub-administration of the Covenant of Grace, designed to further the purpose and program of the gospel.”[8]

 

[1] Michael S. Horton, “A Covenant Theology Response,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 197.

[2] Horton, “Covenant Theology,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 38; quoting Calvin’s commentary on Romans (at Rom 10:5).

[3] Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele, Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored (Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2012), 102-4.

[4] Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 321.

[5] Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 23-24.

[6] Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, Single-Volume Edition, trans. and ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 348 (2.130 in the multi-volume edition).

[7] Horton, “Covenant Theology,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 47.

[8] Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 128.

Republication, Part 4: The Breakable Covenant - Jeremiah 31

One of Kline’s most powerful arguments for Republication is the fact that the Old Covenant was breakable: “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares YHWH” (Jer 31:31-32). Though YHWH was their husband, Israel was unfaithful, the covenant itself was broken, and YHWH divorced Israel (Jer 3:1, 8; cp. Hosea 1:9; 2:2). But if the Old Covenant was breakable, as Jeremiah plainly says that it was, how can it be the covenant of grace pure and simple?

Kline writes:

Paul was resuming Jeremiah’s classic analysis of the covenants when he contrasted the new covenant to the old (the old viewed in the restricted but distinctive terms of its typological dimension). In contrast to the new covenant which could not be broken, founded as it was on God’s sovereign, forgiving grace in Christ, the old covenant, according to Jeremiah, was breakable (Jer 31:32). Individual members of the new covenant community might prove false and be broken off as branches from a tree while the covenant tree remained intact, pruned and flourishing. But the old covenant’s typological kingdom order as such could be and was terminated. The axe of God’s judgment was ultimately laid unto the roots of the tree and the tree itself was felled. Jeremiah’s identification of the old covenant as breakable was the equivalent of an assertion that it lacked the guarantee afforded by the grace principle and was instead based on the principle of works (Kingdom Prologue, 322).

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 2: The Two Layers and Typological Legibility

Republication depends on the notion that the old covenant order was composed of two layers: the national-typological (upper) layer and the personal-soteriological (lower) layer. At the lower layer, the old testament saints were saved by faith in the Messiah to come as part of the one covenant of grace that begins with the first promise of the gospel after the Fall (Gen 3:15) and continues unbroken into the new covenant. The works principle in the old covenant, the probationary arrangement akin to the Adamic covenant of works, was confined to the upper, national-typological layer. National Israel, as a corporate Adam, was on probation in the land. Israel had to be righteous in order to retain the land. But where does Kline get this idea of the two layers? It comes from the concept of two-level fulfillment.

And what about the problem that Israel was far from being perfectly righteous and yet retained the land for a long time prior to the exile? This issue is explained by Vos and Kline in terms of the concept of typological legibility:

Vos: “The theocracy typified nothing short of the perfected kingdom of God, the consummate state of Heaven .... Law-observance, if not the ground for receiving, is yet made the ground for retention of the privileges inherited. Here it can not, of course, be denied that a real connection exists .... The connection ... belongs not to the legal sphere of merit, but to the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression. As stated above, the abode of Israel in Canaan typified the heavenly, perfected state of God’s people. Under these circumstances the ideal of absolute conformity to God’s law of legal holiness had to be upheld .... The requirement could not be lowered. When apostasy on a general scale took place, they could not remain in the promised land” (Biblical Theology, 126-27).

Kline: “The typological objective in the case of the Israelite kingdom was to teach that righteousness and prosperity will be conjoined in the consummated kingdom. For the purpose of keeping that symbolic message readable, persistent wholesale apostasy could not be allowed to accompany possession of the promised inheritance. But, on the other hand, the pedagogical point of the typological arrangement could be satisfactorily made, in a positive fashion, in spite of the inevitable imperfections of the people individually and as a nation. In meting out the blessings and curses of the Mosaic Covenant, the Lord applied the standard of symbolical appropriateness or typological legibility” (Kingdom Prologue, 239-40).

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 1: What Is It?

Republication is a debated topic today and is often misunderstood. The idea is not that the Adamic covenant of works was republished for Israel at Sinai without change. Kline argues that national Israel was “under probation in a covenant of works” (Kingdom Prologue, 352), not “the” covenant of works. That is why I pefer to speak of “typological republication.” The key to making sense of this is to recognize that the Mosaic economy was complex. More things are going on there than simply administering the one covenant of grace. According to Kline, “The old covenant order was composed of two strata,” and “The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum” (KP 321). The foundational layer, the one covenant of grace, continues unbroken from Genesis 3:15 on. But at the secondary layer, a works principle is reenacted with national Israel in order to set the covenantal context for the exile and the coming of Christ, who was born under the law that he might perfectly fulfill it and win the eternal inheritance for us.

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Meredith Kline’s Biblical Theological Grid

This episode of the Upper Register podcast is a visual presentation that builds Meredith Kline’s Biblical Theological Grid from Eden to the New Creation. This is how Kline conceived of the organism of special revelation, the step-by-step building of the Lego set, if you will. This is based on Professor Kline’s own chalkboard drawings at Westminster Seminary California around 1993. It’s not an exact reproduction, and I did make some adjustments, but it is pretty close. Due to the highly visual nature of this episode, you will definitely want to watch the YouTube version.

Download the PDF of Kline’s BT Grid.

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Why was this important to Kline? Fifth Reason

The fifth reason it was important to Kline to recognize the works principle in the Mosaic economy is that without it we have a less secure exegetical basis for the Reformational emphasis on the pedagogical use of the law. Defining the Mosaic law in purely gracious terms effectively annuls the pedagogical use of the law, that is, the law’s function of showing us our inability and convicting us of our guilt.

“By exhibiting dramatically the situation of all mankind, fallen in and with Adam in the original probation in Eden, the tragic history of Israel under its covenant-of-works probation served to convict all of their sinful, hopeless estate. The Law thus drove men to Christ that they might be justified by faith. All were shut up in disobedience that God might have mercy on all (Rom 11:28-36; Gal 3:19-25)” (GHHM 128-29).

“In addition to calling attention to the probationary aspect of Jesus’ mission, the works principle that governed the Israelite kingdom acted as the schoolmaster for Israel, convicting of sin and total inability to satisfy the Lord’s righteous demands and thereby driving the sinner to the grace of God offered in the underlying gospel promises of the Abrahamic Covenant” (KP 353).

Did the Mosaic law demand obedience as the legal basis of obtaining life (Lev 18:5), or is that only a Jewish misunderstanding of the law? If the latter, one cannot make sense of the teaching of Paul that the Mosaic law-covenant was Israel’s “pedagogue unto Christ” (Gal 3:24). One could try to get around this by claiming that it is not the Mosaic covenant but the universally-binding, trans-historical “moral law” that has this pedagogical function. But Paul has already blocked that move by defining what he means by “the law” (ὁ νόμος) in the context:  it is the specific covenant that came 430 years after the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:17); it is the historical expression of the law accompanied by the threat of a curse to the disobedient (Gal 3:10 quoting Deut 27:26) and a promise of life to the doers of the law (Gal 3:12 quoting Lev 18:5); it is the temporary guardian set over the minor children (Israel) “until the date set by the father” (Gal 4:1-2). Of course, there is universal application of this pedagogical function, even for Gentiles, as the Spirit uses the law to convince us of our inability to keep it, but the original reference is to the historical Mosaic covenant and its pedagogical role in redemptive history.

Kline gets unfairly criticized for his understanding of the Mosaic covenant. His motive was not to be an innovator but to listen carefully to Paul’s teaching on the law and thereby provide better exegetical and biblical-theological support for the Reformation insight concerning the pedagogical use of the law.

Why was this important to Kline? Fourth Reason

Recognizing the works principle in the Mosaic economy enables one to see more clearly that the works principle is the bedrock judicial foundation of the gospel. As Kline put it so crisply: “Heaven must be earned” (KP 107). That is not a principle that God does away with in the gospel. Rather, he upholds it precisely through the gospel.

“Law is thus foundational to gospel; gospel-grace honors the demands of divine justice as definitively expressed in law covenant. In Rom 3:31 Paul makes this point forcefully: ‘Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid; nay we establish the law.’ The apostle is not concerned here with the normative nature of the Mosaic laws but with the law as a covenant governed by the principle of works in contrast to the gospel with its principle of grace. And even though he is arguing that we are justified not by works but by grace through faith, he insists emphatically on the continuing validity of the works principle as foundational to the gospel order. It is by the obedience of the one that the many are made righteous (Rom 5:19)” (GOM 237).

Grace is not that God lowers the standard to let us in to heaven despite his justice. Grace is that God provides a substitute who satisfies the just demands of the law in our place. That is why Paul says we “establish the (Mosaic) law” through the gospel (Rom 3:31). He can say that because he understands the Mosaic law fundamentally in terms of the works principle (Lev 18:5). Although we are righteous not by our own works done in obedience to the law, but by faith in Christ, Paul nevertheless “insists emphatically on the continuing validity of the works principle as foundational to the gospel order.” Because Christ was born under the law and perfectly fulfilled it, faith in Christ actually upholds the law.

Why was this important to Kline? Third Reason

Grasping the works principle in the Mosaic economy is crucial for a proper appreciation of the work of Christ, since the Mosaic law provided the historical context for the work of Christ, the fulfiller of the law. To explain this point, Kline relies heavily on Gal 4:4 where Paul says that Christ was “born of a woman, born under the law”:

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4-5 NKJV).

Kline sees deep significance in Gal 4:4 since it ties together all three key points where the works principle is present:  Adam, Israel, Christ. The first phrase, “born of a woman,” alludes to his universal role as the second Adam. The next phrase, “born under the law,” alludes to his particular historical identity as the true Israel. But there is “congruence” (KP 352) between the two. The recapitulation of the Adamic covenant of works in the Mosaic economy is intended precisely to set the context for Christ’s incarnation so that his identity as the true, obedient Israel might be understood as pointing to his more fundamental identity as the second Adam who passes the probation and earns the eternal reward for those whom he represents.

“The function of probationer that Christ assumed as the true Israel-Servant was more basically his in terms of his identity as second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45–47). [Note: In Gal 4:4, ‘born under the law’ identifies Christ as the second Israel, under the Torah covenant. ‘Born of a woman’ brings out his humanity and so suggests his second Adam status.] ... As advertised by his birth under the Torah covenant of works (Gal 4:4), Christ came to earth as one under the intratrinitarian covenant of works” (GOM 237 and 240 n33).

In Kingdom Prologue, Kline has another passage where he make this point under the heading “The Design of the Typal Kingdom.” This is my favorite Kline quote of all time:

“A variety of purposes can be discovered to explain the insertion of the old covenant order and its typal kingdom into the course of redemptive history. Of central importance was the creation of the proper historical setting for the advent of the Son of God and his earthly mission (cf. Rom 9:5). In accordance with the terms of his covenant of works with the Father he was to come as the second Adam in order to undergo a representative probation and by his obedient and triumphant accomplishment thereof to establish the legal ground for God’s covenanted bestowal of the eternal kingdom of salvation on his people. It was therefore expedient, if not necessary, that Christ appear within a covenant order which, like the covenant with the first Adam, was governed by the works principle (cf. Gal 4:4). The typal kingdom of the old covenant was precisely that. Within the limitations of the fallen world and with modifications peculiar to the redemptive process, the old theocratic kingdom was a reproduction of the original covenantal order. Israel as the theocratic nation was mankind stationed once again in a paradise-sanctuary, under probation in a covenant of works. In the context of that situation, the Incarnation event was legible; apart from it the meaning of the appearing and ministry of the Son of Man would hardly have been perspicuous. Because of the congruence between Jesus’ particular historical identity as the true Israel, born under the law, and his universally relevant role as the second Adam, the significance of his mission as the accomplishing of a probationary assignment in a works covenant in behalf of the elect of all ages was lucidly expressed and readily readable” (KP 352).

Conversely, denying the works principle in the Mosaic law will make it harder to see Christ’s work as a meritorious fulfilling of the law in our place in order to earn heaven for us.

Why was this important to Kline? Second Reason

The second reason it was important to Kline to recognize a works principle in the Mosaic covenant is that failure to do so will make the biblical theologian less likely to recognize a works principle in other covenants, specifically the pre-Fall covenant with Adam and the pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son, aka, the pactum salutis.

“Rejection of the works principle in the old covenant tends to degenerate into a more general denial of the possibility of merit in the religious relationship and thus to a rejection of the principle of works in the original creation covenant with Adam” (“Gospel until the Law,” 435).

For example, Daniel Fuller and Norman Shepherd took their denial of the law-gospel contrast to this next step, denying that God ever relates to humans on the basis of a works-principle, thereby denying the Adamic covenant of works and the merit of Christ. 

“The very idea of merit is foreign to the way in which God our Father relates to his children” (Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 39).

This is not a tight law of necessity. It is not as if all who reject Kline’s particular formulation of the works principle in the Mosaic economy are necessarily bound to reject the works principle in the Creator’s covenant of works with the first Adam or in the Father’s covenant of works with Christ as the second Adam. But there is a tendency in that direction – and the reason for this is biblical-theological. Paul views the obedience of Christ in terms of the fulfillment of the Mosaic law (Rom 3:31; 10:4; Gal 4:4). There are strong biblical theological linkages from Adam to corporate Israel, and from corporate Israel to Christ. The latter connection is strongly present in Matthew’s Gospel, for example (Matt 1–4). When Paul wants to articulate the works principle as the key presupposition of his doctrine of justification, he quotes the works principle, not as found in the Adamic covenant, but as found in the Mosaic law (Lev 18:5). Thus, the biblical theologian who does not recognize the works principle in the Mosaic economy is less likely to be able to recognize it anywhere else.

If the very idea of merit is rejected in principle, then we must also reject the idea that the obedience of Christ was meritorious. Denying merit is like removing a load-bearing Jenga stick. Remove that one piece and the whole superstructure crumbles.

Why was this important to Kline? First Reason

Why was Kline so concerned to recognize that works was the controlling administrative principle of the Mosaic covenant? There are at least five reasons.

The first reason is that Kline perceived that if one denies the works principle in the Mosaic law, then one will view the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant as part of the administration of grace and promise, a mere administrative continuation of the Abrahamic covenant. Doing this will distort one’s understanding of the covenant of grace. If the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant (do this and live; blessing for obedience; curse for disobedience) is actually part of the covenant of grace, then that conditionality will change the role of good works or evangelical obedience in the covenant of grace. Good works will necessarily play more than an evidentiary role and become a condition for receiving the blessings of the covenant of grace. Making good works a condition of receiving the blessings of the covenant of grace is in conflict with the purity of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The rejection of the works principle in the Mosaic law leads logically to interpreting the blessings and curses of the law as God’s way of dealing with his redeemed people in every epoch of the covenant of grace, not just in the old covenant, but also in the new.

“As he develops the thesis that God’s covenants are characterized by a continuum of governmental principle rather than by a works-grace contrast Shepherd affirms the unity of all these covenants, preredemptive and redemptive, specifically proposing that they all have in common both demand and promise” (“Of Works and Grace,” 88). 

“This tendency is displayed in the more immediate sphere of Murray’s influence. In the teaching of his successor, Norman Shepherd, preredemptive and redemptive covenants were flattened into a continuum of promise and demand” (“Gospel until the Law,” 435 and n9).

Here are some quotes from theologians whose denial of the Mosaic works principle leads them to such a continuum of promise and demand:

“The Mosaic covenant in respect of the condition of obedience is not in a different category from the Abrahamic. It is too frequently assumed that the conditions prescribed in connection with the Mosaic covenant place the Mosaic dispensation in a totally different category as respects grace, on the one hand, and demand or obligation, on the other. In reality there is nothing that is principally different in the necessity of keeping the covenant and of obedience to God’s voice, which proceeds from the Mosaic covenant, from that which is involved in the keeping required in the Abrahamic” (John Murray, “The Covenant of Grace,” 22).

“In the Mosaic covenant, the Lord did not establish a covenant of works with his people. He did not establish a covenant on the basis of a principle that is the very opposite of that on which the Abrahamic covenant is founded .... Like the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant has two parts, promise and obligation. In the Abrahamic covenant, the focus is on promise. In the Mosaic covenant, the focus is on obligation – but promise does not receded into the background .... The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith. It is the fullness of faith. Obedience is simply faithfulness to the Lord .... The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants do not exhibit opposing principles of grace and merit, or of faith and works. In both covenants there are promises, and these promises are received by a living and active faith. In both covenants, there are warnings about the consequences of unbelief and disobedience .... The penalties threatened for disobedience in the Mosaic covenant are fully in line with this provision of the Abrahamic covenant. Threatened curses for disobedience do not transform either the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosaic covenant into a covenant of works” (Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 38-40).

This has very practical implications for preaching. How should the blessing and curse passages in the Old Testament be preached to the new covenant people of God? Do we tell them, as Shepherd would, that they must be obedient to God and if they are not, they will be cursed? I would hope not. To preach that way would be to bring the new covenant people of God back under the bondage of the law that we have been delivered from in Christ. Paul says we are free from the curse of the law. He says that we have died to the law, and are no longer under its bondage and fear. We serve God in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the letter.

“The irony of all this is that a position that asserts a continuum of ‘grace’ everywhere ends up with no genuine gospel grace anywhere. An approach that starts out by claiming that a works principle operates nowhere ends up with a kind of works principle everywhere. What this amounts to is a retreat from the Reformation and a return to Rome” (“Covenant Theology Under Attack”).