I have to admit, I simply can’t make any sense of this post.
According to the writer to the Hebrews, the giving of the law to Moses was accompanied by darkness, by tempest, by thunder, and by threat. Moses “exceedingly feared and quaked,” we are told. Its preamble notwithstanding, the function of the Decalogue was to instruct God’s people in the context of a covenant that threatened disinheritance for failure to “keep all things written in the law, and do them.”
But is not the point being made by the author of Hebrews that the New Covenant is scarier? If Moses quaked how much more should we? “That’s why we needed a New Covenant: so that we can obey without fear.” Not what the writer of Hebrews says, in my opinion.
No need for opinion to enter into the discussion. The author of Hebrews makes it crystal clear in chapter 10:16-26
“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Rev. Horne,
You are absolutely correct here. The perspective of the author of the post simply does not wash with the message of Hebrews. The continual refrain throughout the epistle is, “how much more… how much worse…”
Mark,
That the New Covenant contains conditions is not in question, at least not by me. The issue concerns the role our works play in the New as opposed to the Old Covenant.
Under the OC, Israel’s works determined their retention or forfeiture of the land. Under the NC, conversely, our inheritance of the new heavens and new earth is determined by the obedience of the true Vine, Jesus Christ.
You could have commented on my blog for clarification (if clarification was what you were seeking).
JJS
Jason, I don’t know why I impulsively commented here. I don’t think it should matter one way or another in the blogosphere.
But your contrast between the OC and the NC is simply not accurate. Paul warned the Corinthians of exactly the same condemnation as Israel in the wilderness if they committed idolatry (1 Cor 10). The author of Hebrews issues the same warnings to his readers using what happened to Israel as an example–and he moves seamlessly between describing their behavior as unbelief and disobedience, exhorting to faith and exhorting to perseverance. Paul warns the Romans that they will be cut off if they become arrogant like the Jews did.
It was faith, not works (in the sense of the Covenant of Works requiring perfect obedience, that determined Israel’s retention or forfeiture of the land, and when Jesus warns churches that their candlestick might be removed (Rev 2-3) he treats them in exactly the same way.
Thus, classic Reformed theology has always argued that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Zacharias Ursinus argues that there is but one covenant before and after Christ because the conditions of the covenant are the same.
Mark,
As I said already, no one is denying conditionality in the NC or the need for obedience. So I take I Cor. 9 seriously, as well as Heb. 6 and 10.
But what I have not yet seen is Federal Vision proponents taking seriously the claim, also in Hebrews, that the New Covenant is a “better covenant” because it is “founded on better promises” (and simply saying that the NC is better because it is the climax of God’s covenantal dealings with his people is not enough to account for the fact that it is not only the “covenant” that is “better,” but the “promises” as well, which are said to be quite different from those made to Israel from Sinai).
And about faith under Moses, no one is denying that is was by faith that the Israelites gained their eternal inheritance. But that doesn’t change the fact that “the law is not of faith, but the one who does these things shall live by them.” Obviously there was a Mosaic arrangement that (typologically) offered blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience.
And “classic covenant theology” has had a lot to say about the nature of the Mosaic covenant, but the fact that Moses administered grace on one level does not preclude his also administering law on another (when considered narrowly). Calvin, Turretin, Ursinus, &c all teach this clearly.
Jason
Mark (and anyone else): How do we put this together with:
“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.”
Of course even “perfect love casts out fear” appears in a letter that comes with its own sort of warnings.
JJS: It sounds (to me) like your first comment here says that there are indeed new covenant conditions to be met — and then suggests that they must be met by Jesus, the obedient Vine, not by us. Fair? Your second comment reaffirms new covenant conditionality, and you write that you “take 1 Cor. 9 seriously.” Will you unpack what it means to take 1 Cor 9 — with its warnings (conditions?) — seriously, especially if I’ve read your first comment correctly? And what of the obedient Vine’s own imperative “Abide in me”?
(From someone who’s not particularly committed one way or the other on “FV” but who intermittently listens in to the discussion.)
It seems to me that there are two directions in which a theology of biblical covenants can be too easily flattened out.
In the more Klinean direction, one can too easily collapse Torah back into the order of creation and the obedience for which Adam was created and empowered. In the other direction (whether one sees that as Shepherdian or FVist or whatever), one can too easily collapse Torah into the New Covenant and the life of faith under the Spirit we have in Christ. Of course, there’s the Cameronian (that’s John Cameron of the School of Saumur) option of having a three covenant schema.
I don’t think any of those really do justice to the complexity of the biblical data. I’m not sure how best to work out all the details, but it seems to me that we need to maintain that:
[a] Torah is a ministration of death by which God bound everyone, especially Israel, over to sin; part of this has to do with the fact that Torah, given to the descendents of Adam, can’t help but recapitulate and extend the sin of Adam, increasing transgression
[b] Torah already contains the Gospel promise and anticipates the eschatological reality of the New Covenant under the Spirit in Christ, living out in him the truly human vocation for which Adam was created and which will only be consummated on the last day
Because of [a], Torah can’t deliver on [b], though Torah functions in terms of [a] in order that what’s anticipated in [b] might come to fulfillment. In both respects, Torah looks back to Adam and forward to Christ.
That leaves a lot of details open, but it seems that such tensions and concerns need to be maintained in any honest accounting of the biblical data.
Jason, I’m not sure why your comment got left in moderation limbo overnight. I approved you so you’re supposed to be able to leave comments without needing any more approval. I don’t understand what went wrong.
Paul,
By “conditionality” in the NC, what I mean is that, for all baptized members of the covenant community, the need is there is “improve” our baptisms by bearing fruit to God’s glory. But as we look to Christ we take comfort in the fact that our sanctification, like our justification, comes from the gospel. God has given us new hearts and united us with Christ.
The Israelites of old, however, received no power from the law to obey its commands (which they needed to do in order to retain their tenure in the land). That’s why Paul refers to the Mosaic Covenant as producing bondage, fear, condemnation, and death.
So on I Cor. 9, we are to remember that the sacrament of baptism (which Paul sees as typified in the Exodus through the sea) places us under a two-edged sword.
But as I’ve said, the role our obedience plays under the NC is different than the typological OC arrangement. Our works do not “keep us in,” we are kept in by the power of God and reserved for the salvation which will be revealed at the last day.
Hope that helps!
Jason
Mark,
When I comment, I’m still “under moderation and awaiting approval” for some reason. I’m tempted to draw a parallel with the Federal Vision’s view of final justification, but I’m refraining (!)….
Jason
Garver,
I have always found Calvin’s and Turretin’s distinction between the law “narrowly” and “broadly” considered to be really helpful.
Broadly considered as the Mosaic epoch, the gospel was clearly working. But Paul also seems to extrapolate a very narrow principle from that covenant (do this and live) which he sees as antithetical to faith and the gospel.
So a righteousness apart from the law (narrowly considered) is now manifest, being witnessed to by the law (broadly considered) and the prophets.
JJS, yes, I quite agree the content of that distinction is on track, though, having made that distinction, one still needs to go on and say more to fill it out. As usual, I’m in the middle somewhere between the extremes (which perhaps helps explain my fondness for Aristotle).
I was going to say that you only seemed to be approved and wordpress is reading your heart… 😉
To add to the mainstream- Sinai as covenant of works is not very popular here in Jackson. The Southern Presbys were pretty big on applying the law historically, and thus I do see this now as a Kline-distinctive. I know you can find other guys throughout history here and there, but today the Kline school seems to be the only identifiable group pushing Moses as Cov. of Works.
Now that I’ve said this, I wouldn’t be surprised if a choice critic here or there decides to pile it on to the FV in order to make a stronger charge. But in a non-polemical setting, people down here do not view the Old Covenant that way.
I think that the letters to the churches in Revelation are just as demand, even ‘work,’ oriented. And if a church gets spit out of Christ’s mouth, we then have the interesting question of “What does it mean for a reprobate to be in Christ’s mouth?” “How did he get in there and what was he there for?”
I immediately think of OT sacrificial imagery, as Yahweh was eating the people when he ate the sacrifice. There’s probably some fun typology to work out.
For the record,
1. I didn’t see this as a polemical post. Jason is not… other people and his blog is not other blogs that would have made me place this post on another blog altogether because I’m sick of what is happening to this one (and to me, for that matter).
I do apologize if I misjudged and I do appreciate the conversation here if it is interpreted in that light.
2. I must object to anything here being attributed to “the federal vision,” the bogey man, or the monster in the closet. This was Covenant theology 101 at my seminary. There is simply nothing extreme about it.
Of course, all Christ’s commands, narrowly considered, bring fear and damnation, in either Testament. Thank God they are never narrowly considered for us.
That may be why, when the Apostle John saw Jesus in his glory, he was struck down just like the unbelieving Saul was. To contrast the theophanies associated with the Law with NT data seems highly selective of the data, in my opinion.
The entire age is under sin until Christ comes. Holding onto the Law to reject Christ is to hold on to sin and damnation. All of this can be affirmed (and should be) without the typological covenant of works–which is not in the Westminster Standards and was not taught to me ever, outside of polemnical groups saying I’ve denied the Gospel. I believe my education was quite mainstream in this regard.
Speaking of biblical data, the Klinean perspective has a real problem, since Paul says that the inheritance came by promise to Abraham, and to his seed (Gal. 3:16ff.) But the OT texts that refer specifically to the seed, which Paul clearly has in mind, in fact explicitly refer to the land (e.g., the self-maledictory oath of Gen. 15, which is specifically made so that Abraham would know his descendants would inherit the land, v. 8). Thus, Galatians 3 actually proves that Israel did not hold the land by works, since the promise was expressly the possession of the land (Gal. 3:17-18). Furthermore, Paul also characterizes the summary of the paradigmatic document of the Mosaic covenant (i.e., Deuteronomy, summarized in Deut. 30:12-14) as the righteousness that is from faith (Rom. 10:6-9). Thus, Paul does not view the inheritance of the land as based on works, nor does he view the Mosaic covenant document to be expressing the righteousness of the law. Finally, if the Adamic covenant is the covenant of works, then the Mosaic covenant is clearly different, since one violation of the Adamic covenant nullified the whole thing, while Israel was not finally sanctioned by the Mosaic covenant until after generations of unfaithful kings and persistent unbelief and repeated calls to repentance.
I had people say to me when I was at Westminster Escondido that without Kline’s view of the Mosaic covenant, you couldn’t have justification. I know students were saying that, but I don’t recall professors saying so–but it seems as though right now my former profs are trying to something very similar, i.e., make one particular formulation, not expressed in any confessions, the measure of true orthodoxy. Doing that with Kline’s perspective–the “typological cov’t of works”–just doesn’t work biblically.
That smiley face is supposed to be the number 8. I don’t know what happened there.
Right, it seems like we are now affirming that the inheritance did come by the law. We just say that Christ is the one who kept the law in order to bring in the promises. This is anti-Pauline to the core.
JWDS,
The kingdom promises were indeed given to Abraham as a gift of grace, but the nation under Moses was responsible to hold on to those promises by their faithfulness to the law (which is clear both from Deut. 28 and from the fact that they eventually went into exile). Hence, they “got in” by grace and “stayed in” by faithfulness.
Paul’s statements in Rom. 10 about “the righteousness of the law” and “the righteousness of faith” (both using quotes from Deuteronomy) only demonstrates the narrow/broad distinction that men like Calvin and Turretin often highlight (discussed in the comments above).
Lastly, no one is claiming that the Adamic and Mosaic arrangements were identical in every respect, only that they were both driven by a principle of works. Of course Israel, now fallen, couldn’t be held to the strictness of the Edenic covenant since they would then have marched right across the Jordan into Babylon. But their eventual exile does demonstrate the precarious, legal nature of their tenure in the land.
Hope that helps!
Jason
Hmm. Isn’t part of the message of Dt 28-30 (and Lev 26) that, even if Israel disobeys and ends up in exile, God will still come through on his promises? “Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them, for I am Yahweh their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers…” (Lev 26:44-45).
So, ultimately, even under Moses the inheritance is not conditioned by obedience to Torah, but by the intention of God to fulfill his promises despite Israel’s disobedience and Torah’s curse (which disobedience and curse, by the way, were not merely mentioned as possibilities, but predicted). Thus, it seems to me that the big message of Lev 26 and Dt 28-30 is a call for faith in the face of exile.
In Jesus Christ, moreover, we see how this trajectory is fulfilled: even if one is perfectly faithful, the inheritance still comes through the curse of Torah and deliverance, exile and return, death and resurrection. (Of course, how precisely one reads that depends on whether you think Christ was cursed because he was identified with sinners as their substitutre or whether you think Christ was cursed in order to identify with sinners as their substitute.)
But the promise of Torah becomes finally “believeable” to the eyes of faith when Christ comes since, in his person, the curse of exile is actually overturned.
At any rate, there’s a series of exegetical choices to make and then a series of more architectonic choices to make, in order to build a comprehensive biblical theology of the covenants.
Joel,
I think that is probably exactly right. I’ve been trying to formulate the torah’s role in bringing along the eschatological death. After the Fall, the final and perfect fulfillment of the Adamic covenant had to come in death.
I think this has been a surprisingly beneficial discussion, and people have actually been talking to, not past, each other. As I read Hebrews 12 – to get back to what initially prompted the discussion – I don’t see the author as simply saying either a) the New Covenant is scarier than the Mosaic covenant or b) “because Christ is the New Covenant head, then we’re all fine, come what may.”
The advocates of option a need to contend specifically with the phrasing that the blood of Christ “speaks better things than the blood of Abel.” This sounds encouraging, not scary.
On the other hand, the advocates of option b need to contend with the stern warning that closes the chapter, which references the OT: “Our God is a consuming fire.”
To put these things together, I would suggest that the author is saying that the New Covenant is greater and more gracious than the Mosaic covenant (“For the Law come through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”) because Christ’s role as Mediator frees us to come into God’s presence in a way that the Old Testament saints could not (though they looked for it with hope, knowing that they “would not be made perfect apart from us”). The role of the Spirit, which testifies to Christ, is more clearly revealed and our relationship with God is both more personal and more universal (since the worship of God is no longer centered upon a physical temple, but we are the temples of the Holy Spirit).
So these are all real blessings of living in the New Covenant economy, and reasons why we need not fear like the Israelites did at Sinai (for we are a holy nation, and are all priests to God). For those who look to Christ’s finished work on their behalf, perfect love has cast out fear. (To forestall possible objection, I acknowledge the OT saints were saved by faith which looked forward to Christ, and since we are justified on the basis of our faith’s object, not our faith itself, they were justified as we are. That said, their faith, since it was faith in a prophecy and not in a completed event, had a very different experiential character from our faith. That is what marks the difference between OT and NT saints.)
To all this, the advocates of option b (Christ as the New Covenant head, us in an unconditional covenant) would heartily agree, I assume. However, I am not in full agreement with their position, either. As I said above, it also fails to do justice to the passage, especially in its immediate context.
The author of Hebrews does say there are people who should fear in the New Covenant administration – these are the people who are within the covenant, within the Church (in the Biblical-theology sense, not the WCF sense), who have thus experienced the greater graciousness of the New Covenant administration, the access to God which we have through Christ, and yet fall away. These people, having tasted of the powers of the age to come, when they fall cannot be renewed to repentance, and thus are left only a certain fearful expectation of judgment. For when people know Christ, and yet reject Him as Mediator, then they must face Him as judge.
(To forestall objections, again, I am not saying that the elect (in the WCF sense) can fall away. Nor am I saying, as Lutherans would, that one can have true saving faith and then lose it. On my blog, I argued recently that the elect, or at least some of the elect, have a different phenomenological experience of faith than do non-elect covenant members. The grace of assurance does exist, though not all possess it.)
One clarification: While rewording that comment, I made a mistake in the second-to-last (the penultimate, as Bonhoeffer would say) paragraph. The word “covenant” should have been modified by that parenthetical remark, not the word “Church.”
Evan,
The point is that the NC is two sided. Yes, it is better in every way, and brings better promises… of course. I don’t think anyone would ever deny that. But on the flip side, it is also more terrifying to those who break it, i.e. spurn Christ. Both of these truths are reitterated throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, and making the “better promises” cancel out the “how much worse punishment will we receive then if…” simply doesn’t wash with the author’s message.
The entire scope of the New Covenant is elevated, both blessings and curses. This is especially apparent in 10:26-31, where (at least in my reading) in verses 26-28 the author deals with the fact that under the OC there was no sacrifice for sins committed deliberately and that breaking the Mosaic law brought death without mercy. You might expect a “but don’t worry, Jesus took care of all that” here, but that’s not what it says. It says “how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant *by which he was sanctified*…” The message there seems pretty apparent to me.
And as for ch. 12, notice that we have the same dynamic. Yes, beautiful, wonderful blessings which far eclipse anything under the OC economy. But the chapter is ended with, “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape… much less will we escape…” Again, according to Hebrews, the NC is an elevated covenant in every way, not only blessings, but also curses.
I agree with Joel’s point: the very fact that the paradigmatic Mosaic treaty specifically includes the information that Israel will break the covenant and then God will still save them from exile indicates that the fundamental principle of the Mosaic covenant is God’s mercy and faithfulness, not Israel’s keeping of the conditions.
Furthermore, he NT people of God appear to be in exactly the same position as the OT people of God, as Paul’s warnings to the ingrafted Gentiles in Rom. 11:19-24 and the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 10 indicate, or as the author of Hebrews indicates in his application of Ps. 95 to his own audience (ch. 3). The same warnings and conditions that applied to Israel, demonstrating the “precarious, legal nature” of their covenant standing, apply to us, as all of these passages point out; the formal structure of the covenant is the same in terms of the standing of the covenant community–they are in God’s favor because of His initiative and saving work, but the final blessings can still be forfeited through lack of obedience or lack of faith (Heb. 3:18-19). So if the fundamental inheritance-principle of the Mosaic covenant was works, then the same is true of the New Covenant. But of course we all agree that the consequent is false, so we need to adjust one of our premises, i.e., the Mosaic covenant as a principle of works.
I understand that Israel was not exactly like Adam, but the same point is in view: to which covenant administration is the Mosaic economy more similar, the Adamic or the New? Let’s see: provision made for atonement? Not in the Adamic, but certainly in the Mosaic (even for the entire nation, which is supposedly in a works-relationship, cf. the Day of Atonement) and the New. Promises of God’s faithfulness beyond man’s disobedience unto redemption? Again, not in the Adamic, but in the Mosaic and the New. I could list more of these, but the point is the same: if the Adamic covenant is the paradigmatic covenant of works (to accept this designation for the sake of argument), and the New Covenant in the fullest expression of the covenant of grace, how does the Mosaic belong with the former in structure, when in fact it shares all the characteristics of the latter?
Oh, and Paul’s quote about the righteousness of the law comes from Leviticus, not from Deuteronomy–so my point is that Paul appeals specifically to the ratified Mosaic treaty document, i.e., Deuteronomy, as the righteousness of faith, which doesn’t make sense if the fundamental nature of the Mosaic covenant as constituted by that treaty document is one of works.
Jonathan, I agree with you. I just thought that both the original post and Mark’s reply to it were only stressing one side or the other. We need to emphasize both equally.