2 administrations of the C of W

[JM]

Do you believe the Sinaitic covenant was a second administration of the covenant of works?

After reading the quote below, taking time to think about it, it would make good sense for covenantal Baptists to reject infant baptism based on their understanding of the Sinaitic covenant.

"Keach taught that the Bible reveals two administrations of the covenant of works. The first administration appeared in the garden before Adam's fall. That garden covenant promised eternal life to Adam on the condition of his perfect obedience to God's law and threatened eternal death for sin. In addition to the first edition of the covenant of works, Keach wrote that "there was another Edition or Administration of it given to Israel, which tho' it was a Covenant of Works, i.e. Do this and live, yet it was not given by the Lord to the same End and Design… It was not given to justify them." Referencing John Owen, Keach argued that the Mosaic covenant given to the Israelite nation serves to reveal God's perfect holiness. It also serves to prove that sinners, who are without such perfect holiness, can never be justified in God's sight. Therefore, one function of the Mosaic covenant is to drive men outside of themselves, away from their own righteousness, and to the alien righteousness of Christ for justification (Romans 3:19-20; Galatians 3:21-22). Keach's covenant theology was significantly influenced by John Owen, who was not a Baptist, but a Congregationalist."

Such an interesting subject, one with practical ramifications, and I am thankful for your input.

jm

 

[JM]

Found a quote directly taken from Keach's work on the covenants:

“True, there was another Edition or Administration of it given to Israel, which tho’ it was a Covenant of Works, i.e. Do this and live, yet it was not given by the Lord to the same End and Design, as the Covenant was given to our First Parents, viz. It was not given to justifie them, or to give them eternal Life; For if Righteousness had been by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2.21. And again saith Paul, For if there had been a Law given, that could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law, Gal 3.21. But indeed, it was impossible Life, Justification, or Righteousness, could be by the Law, or by any Law, because Man hath sinned, and is now unable to answer the Law of perfect Obedience, all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God: We must therefore now be justified by the Grace of God, through the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ; but tho’ Man had lost his Power to obey, yet God hath not lost his Poer to command. ‘Therefore, as Dr. Owen shews, it (was added or) revealed in the Wisdom of God, as instructive; as also, to shew the Excellency of that State and Condition, in which we were created; with the Honour that God put upon our Nature: from whence Directions unto a due Apprehension of God and ourselves, may be taken or derived. It served to shew what a Righteousness Man once had, and by his Transgression lost and also what a Righteousness ‘tis, which the Holiness of Go doth require, in order to our Justification in his sight.” Benjamin Keach on the covenant of works with Israel | Particular Voices
​

 

[JM]

Pink follows John Owen and Thomas Bell in that the covenant of works was republished on Sinai.

When we say that in substance it was a renewal of the Adamic covenant of works, we mean that Israel was placed under the same law (in principle) as the federal head of the race was, and that as Adam’s continued enjoyment of Eden was contingent upon his obedience. In saying that the Sinaitic constitution was an appendage to the Abrahamic covenant, we mean that it gathered up into itself the primordial and patriarchal institutions—the sabbath, sacrifices, circumcision—while it added a multitude of new ordinances which, though in themselves "weak and beggarly elements," were both instructive symbols and typical prefigurations of future spiritual blessings.

 

[All Souls]

Have a read of The Law is not of Faith, a review can be found here.

 

[JM]

I found a section in Dr. Beeke's book A Puritan Theology titled the Minority Report and I guess it deals with this subject. I look forward to reading it.

 

[JM]

Notes From Hebrews 8.6-9 | Feileadh Mor

A. W. Pink on Hebrews 8.

The republication of the covenant of works at Sinai:

In approaching the subject of the two covenants, the old and the new, it should be pointed out that it is not always an easy matter to determine whether the “old covenant” designates the Mosaic economy or the covenant of works which God made with Adam (Hos. 6:7 margin); nor to decide whether the “new covenant” refers to the Gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace which was inaugurated by the first promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and confirmed to Abraham (Gen. 17). In each case the context must decide. We may add that the principal passages where the two covenants are described and contrasted are found in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Galatians chapter 3 and 4, Hebrews chapters 8, 9 and 12.
​

Pink, following Owen’s lead, views the old Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works made with Adam before the fall. He also finds evidence for the new covenant of grace promised to Adam after the fall, fulfilled by the death of the testator Jesus Christ. [Proto-Evangelium]

Commenting on Hebrews 8.6:

This more excellent ministry Christ is here said to have “obtained.” The way whereby the Lord Jesus entered on the whole office and work of His mediation has been expressed in Hebrews 1:4 as by “inheritance”: that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto Him as the Son
​

The ministry of the old covenant was powerless, it never obtained anything and only looked forward to the promised Messiah.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8.7

The covenant which is here referred to is that into which Jehovah entered with Israel at Sinai: see Exodus 19:5; 34:27, 28; Deuteronomy 4:13. Israel’s response is recorded in Exodus 19:8, 24:3. It was ratified by blood: Exodus 24:4-8. This was not the “first” covenant absolutely, but the first made with Israel nationally. Previously, God had made a covenant with Adam (Hos. 6:7), and in some respects the Covenant at Sinai adumbrated [adumbrated: To give a sketchy outline of; To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow.] it, for it was chiefly one of works.So too He had made a covenant with Abraham, which in some respects adumbrated the Everlasting Covenant, inasmuch as it was one purely of grace. Prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, as is clear from Exodus 2:24; 6:3, 4. But it was on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant that Israel entered Canaan: see Joshua 7:11, 15; Judges 2:19-21; 1 Kings 11:11; Jeremiah 34:18, 19.
​

Pink asks the question, Wherein lay its “faultiness?”

It was wholly external, accompanied by no internal efficacy. It set before Israel an objective standard but supplied no power to measure up to it. It treated with men in the flesh, and therefore the law was impotent through the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It provided a sacrifice for sin, but the value thereof was only ceremonial and transient, failing to actually put away sin. It was unable to secure actual redemption. Hence because of its inadequacy, a new and better covenant was needed.
​

 

[JM]

"...move it on over." - Hank Williams Sr.