tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post4742176946293966122..comments2023-05-02T09:50:43.941-05:00Comments on Reformed Baptist Blog: Eternal Life and the Mosaic CovenantKeith Throophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-81560984567840111702013-09-05T12:00:18.055-05:002013-09-05T12:00:18.055-05:00For interested readers, there is a fairly lengthy ...For interested readers, there is a fairly lengthy discussion between Jeff Johnson and Brandon Adams at Brandon's blog here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/clarification-on-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/<br /><br />If you take time to read through Brandon's post and the ensuing conversation between Jeff and Brandon in the comments following the post, I think it will be worth your while and help you to see more clearly where they differ and where they agree.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-76925006365176797252013-09-01T21:22:53.413-05:002013-09-01T21:22:53.413-05:00Meditating on Matthew 3:13-17 today, I wonder if J...Meditating on Matthew 3:13-17 today, I wonder if John's baptism of Jesus might be a close conceptual analogy with Jesus' relationship to the Mosaic Law. Jesus was baptized just as the rest of Israel was baptized. But the baptism a meant different thing for Jesus, in contrast to the Israelites in general. They needed repentance, and baptism was a sign of their repentance. Jesus does not need repentance, but is baptized to "fulfill all righteousness," as He embodied the story of the people of God in His own person, including perfect, vicarious repentance.Andrew Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543222209236040112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-58979851487766309002013-08-25T21:46:12.850-05:002013-08-25T21:46:12.850-05:00Thanks Brandon. For those who are interested in di...Thanks Brandon. For those who are interested in diving deeper into this subject, check out Brandon's blog--very helpful. I appreciate you, Brandon, for diving deeper yourself and offering challenging questions. Thanks brother. Also Brandon is the creator of the helpful 1689 Federalism site. Please go check it out (1689federalism.com). Jeff Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336713058373263249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-37523227722837359312013-08-25T12:09:32.826-05:002013-08-25T12:09:32.826-05:008.
Yes, these promises pointed forward to the new ...<b>8.</b><br />Yes, these promises pointed forward to the new heavens and the new earth, but that is because the prophets were prophesying of the New Covenant (just as Moses did in Deut 30), the antitypical fulfillment of which the Mosaic Covenant was a type. Ezekial also prophesies that God will raise dead bones to give them life and replace a heart of stone with a heart of flesh, but we don't attribute this to the Mosaic Covenant. We recognize that these are New Covenant blessings (Jer 31/Heb 8) that were not part of the Old Covenant.<br /><br /><b>9.</b><br />I appreciate what you have articulated here, and can agree with most of it. But I think most of what you say would still apply if the Mosaic Covenant were confined to the "first level fulfillment" (to use Kline's terms).<br /><br />----<br />If any readers are interested, you can find further interaction with Jeff here: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/clarification-on-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life<br /><br />Thanks again for this great opportunity to sharpen each other brother. Have a blessed Lord's Day tomorrow.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-10040534027364231802013-08-25T12:08:33.759-05:002013-08-25T12:08:33.759-05:004.
I don’t think this passages proves that the Mos...<b>4.</b><br />I don’t think this passages proves that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life, only that the commandments written in the Mosaic Covenant were the same as those given to Adam in the covenant of creation.<br /><br /><b>5.</b><br />The moral law of God does not by necessity promise eternal life. By necessity it requires eternal punishment for disobedience, but not eternal life for obedience. That reward was added above and beyond the law in the covenant made with Adam. This is the teaching of LBCF 7.1, referencing Luke 17:10.<br /><br />Therefore the moral law can be used in a covenantal context that does not offer eternal life as a reward.<br /><br /><b>6.</b><br />Viewing the Covenant of Redemption as Christ's Covenant of Works also removes Christ from the Adamic Covenant of Works.<br /><br />I do not believe Christ was the federal head of the Mosaic Covenant. In explaining the numerous differences between the Old and New Covenants, Owen explains that<br /><br /><i>they differ in their mediators. The mediator of the first covenant was Moses... But the mediator of the new covenant is the Son of God himself... He who is the Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the mediator of this covenant; and in this it is unspeakably preferred before the old covenant</i><br /><br />Perhaps the greatest problem I see with this view is that God cannot justly enter into a new covenant with people who are already under the sanctions of a previously ratified covenant, under the same terms. This does not have reference to ability/inability. The only way God could offer Israelites eternal life in a newly ratified covenant would be to annul the covenant of works they were already under in Adam. Gal 3:15 says this would be unjust/illegal.<br />https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/clarification-on-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/#comment-2477<br /><br /><b>7.</b><br />See comments on point 3 aboveBrandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-17524959074894449742013-08-25T12:04:30.049-05:002013-08-25T12:04:30.049-05:003.
It's important to understand how the NT au...<b>3. </b><br />It's important to understand how the NT authors understood typology in their interpretation of the OT. They often eschatologized passages, which can be confusing at first. Nehemiah Coxe points to how John 19:36 references Ex 12:46. John says<br /><br /><i>For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”</i><br /><br />but if you go back and read Exodus 12:46, it doesn't say that:<br /><br /><i>It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones.</i><br /><br />John interpreted Exodus 12:46 typologically, but he never said that's what he was doing. He simply said that Ex 12:46 was a direct prophecy of "his" bones. So we have to recognize that when Paul quotes Moses, he is also applying the same typological interpretation. He takes it for granted and does not spell out the steps involved in his hermeneutic.<br /><br />Bryan Estelle, in his chapter in The Law is Not of Faith explains this as it applies to Lev 18:5. The original context referred to life in the land of Canaan, but Paul understands the typological significance and applies it to eternal life.<br /><br /><i>the temporal life promised in the Mosaic covenant portended and typified the greater “eternal life,” which seems the clear position argued by the apostle Paul... What was prototypical [life in Canaan] has been eclipsed by what is antitypical [eternal life].</i>Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-79558515887979113752013-08-25T12:03:36.780-05:002013-08-25T12:03:36.780-05:002.
Leviticus 18:5 does not say eternal life, mere...<b>2. </b><br />Leviticus 18:5 does not say eternal life, merely life. It could mean eternal life, but it may also simply mean long life in the land of Canaan (my view). <br /><br />Interpreting Deuteronomy is not always straight forward. For example, Deuteronomy 30 promises a restoration of Isarel. Does that mean the restoration was part of the Mosaic Covenant? v6 says "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart" - does that mean the Mosaic Covenant provided and delivered the new heart promised in the New Covenant (Jer 31; Ezek 36)? I would say no.<br /><br />Likewise, I would say that Deut 29:20 does not necessarily mean the curses of the Mosaic Covenant were eternal. Just note how little reference there is to something eternal in the midst of massive, abundant references to physical life in the land. What the verse says is that turning away from the Lord will:<br /><br />1) bring every curse written in this book<br />AND<br />2) the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven<br /><br />This implies they are two different things. Also, looking at parallel passages, I'm not certain this blotting necessarily has reference to eternal damnation.<br /><br />All that to say, these passages are not clear enough to decide the issueBrandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-60003642202706914002013-08-25T12:00:55.432-05:002013-08-25T12:00:55.432-05:001.
This is the same argument used by paedobaptist...<b>1.</b><br /> This is the same argument used by paedobaptists to justify paedobaptism.<br /><br />R. Scott Clark notes:<br /><i>If we consider the nature of the new covenant, as promised through Jeremiah, we can see, however that it is not absolutely “new” at all. Long before Jeremiah, long before Moses, God had promised to Abraham to be a “God to him and to your children” (Gen 17:7).<br />And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.<br />Scripture repeats the same promise under the Mosaic covenant: “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God” (Isa 6:7). That promise recurs in Jeremiah before the promise of the new covenant (:23; 11:4; 30:22). This is perhaps the most fundamental promise of the covenant.<br />...Thus, whatever is new about the new covenant, new cannot mean “never happened before” or “never before promised” or “a relationship with God” or “a spiritual state” that has never existed before in redemptive history. Yahweh was a God to Abraham and to his children for most of 500 years before Moses. <br /><a href="http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/" rel="nofollow">On the New Covenant</a></i><br /><br />What R. Scott Clark fails to acknowledge is the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic Covenant, including the promise to be a God to Abraham and his offspring. There was a typical level of fulfillment (nation of Israel) as well as the true level of fulfillment (church). T. David Gordon, another paedobaptist, sees this clearly:<br /><br /><i>Murray (and his followers) implicitly believe that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer (which, by my light, is not a relation but an office). I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it. His pledge to be Israel’s God, via the terms of the Sinai administration, committed him to curse Israel for disobedience just as much as to bless her for obedience. In being Israel’s God, he sustained the relation of covenant suzerain to her; he did not bless or curse any other nation for its covenant fidelity or infidelity. In this sense, he was not the God of other nations as he was the God of Israel. (p 120 “By Faith Alone”)</i><br /><br />Jonathan Edwards likewise understood that to be "God's people" has two meanings:<br /><br /><i>such appellations as God’s people, God’s Israel, and some other like phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable diversity of intention... with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people.<br /><a href="http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/works1.x.vi.ii.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/works1.x.vi.ii.html</a></i><br /><br /><br />This all lines up very nicely with the dichotomy you have explained exists in the Abrahamic Covenant.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-56760269530007936602013-08-25T11:53:36.010-05:002013-08-25T11:53:36.010-05:00Thank you for taking the time to write this out br...Thank you for taking the time to write this out brother. I love clearly defined arguments. I may not agree with you on this point, but I'm glad I'm not stuck trying to figure this out on my own :)<br /><br />I know we have already discussed some of this on my blog https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/clarification-on-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/ but I wanted to make sure I address all your points. Hopefully this doesn't create too much confusion trying to maintain two comment threads.<br /><br />Regarding how NCT views the Mosaic as governing external obedience of the nation of Israel, see here: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/pink-and-nct/<br />In short, I think they are right regarding national obedience, but wrong regarding the spiritual nature of the law towards individual members of the nation.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.com