Blog

This article will canvass the Mosaic Covenant, as understood within Dispensational and Particular Baptist theological frameworks. In keeping with the pattern of this section of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series, each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds thereto. Moreover, germane citations from a Particular Baptist (1689 Federalism) primary source will be used to portray how the Mosaic Covenant is widely understood within that theological tradition. After reviewing each noteworthy citation at the outset of this article, we will conclude by summarizing key areas of continuity and discontinuity between Dispensationalism’s and 1689 Federalism’s conception of the Mosaic Covenant.

*Sources For Each Variation of Dispensationalism:^[1]

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism-

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988. 

Revised Dispensationalism-

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. 

Progressive Dispensationalism^[2]–

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

*Source For a Particular Baptist Theological Perspective:

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the Mosaic Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most pertinent references to the Mosaic Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism. Due to the voluminous treatment of the Mosaic Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make repeated references to the Mosaic Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide the fullest picture of how Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists perceive this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These excerpts were carefully selected after reviewing every explicit reference to the Mosaic Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism.

The dispensation of the Law began in Exodus 19:3 and extends through the whole period up to the cross of Christ. An important fact is that the Mosaic Law was never given to the world as a whole but was directed only to Israel. There is no record of Gentiles ever being judged by its standards. The Law had three major divisions: (1) the commandments, God’s moral standards for Israel (Ex. 20); (2) the judgments, the social and civil life of Israel (21:1-24:11); and (3) the ordinances, the religious life of Israel        (24:12-31:18). Over 600 regulations governed Israel’s life. Unlike the preceding covenants, the Mosaic Law was temporary and was preparatory for the coming of the Messiah of Israel (Gal. 3:24-25). In the dispensation of Law, Israel experienced God’s judgments. These included the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities and (after the close of the Mosaic dispensation) the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the scattering of Israel all over the world. The troubles Israel experienced under the Mosaic Covenant, however, will be exceeded by her future time of trouble in the Great Tribulation which will precede the second coming of Christ (Jer. 30:11; Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:22). The dispensation of the Law ended at the cross (Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 3:11-14; Gal. 3:19, 25).      The dispensation of grace, however, did not formally begin until the Day of Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the preceding dispensations of conscience and human government, the Mosaic Law ended. The purpose of the Law to bring about a righteous manner of life for Israel proved instead to be an instrument of divine judgment in revealing the true character of sin. The Law could not justify (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). It failed to sanctify (Heb. 7:18-19) and could not regenerate (Gal. 3:21-22), and the Mosaic Law should settle forever the question as to whether detailed laws of conduct can bring holiness to the human race (Rom. 3:19). Instead, man’s need of Christ was made more evident than ever (Rom. 7:7-25; Gal. 3:21-27).[3]

In attempting to understand the Mosaic system two features of its truth are important: (1) the relation the Mosaic Law sustained to the time of its reign and (2) the application of the Mosaic system. [In reference to the first feature], the Mosaic Law was given as a temporary, not an eternal, rule of life. Before the Mosaic Law was given those laws did not apply, and after the Mosaic Law was concluded the Law was no longer a basic moral code for Christians in the present age… The Law was never given as a means for salvation or justification (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 3:11, 24). The Law therefore became a curse to Israel (Gal. 3:10) bringing them condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9) and death (Rom. 7:10-11). A beneficial effect of the Law was to drive Israel to Christ as the only Saviour and Mediator… The Mosaic Law was given only to the Children of Israel as a way of life. Though others could read the Mosaic code and be instructed concerning the righteousness of God, those who were not Israelites were not under its provisions… The ultimate Law was summarized in the Ten Commandments which were not made applicable to people other than Israel even though it coincided with general principles of law which exist in all dispensations such as the law against idolatry, murder, adultery, dishonesty, and coveting… [To summarize], the Law which was given by Moses was a    covenant of works, that was “added” after centuries of human history; its reign was terminated by the death of Christ; it was given to Israel only; and since it was never given to Gentiles, the only relationship that Gentiles can sustain to it is to impose it on    themselves but this is obviously not the intent of Scripture.[4]

Revised Dispensationalism on the Mosaic Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most relevant references to the Mosaic Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Revised Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive treatment of the Mosaic Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make frequent references to the Mosaic Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide the clearest picture of how Revised Dispensationalists understand this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These citations were carefully selected after reviewing every explicit reference to the Mosaic Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Revised Dispensationalism.

The Mosaic covenant is the law God gave Israel through Moses to govern the life and conduct of Israel in the Promised Land of Canaan (Ex. 19:5-6). This Mosaic covenant, given to Israel after the exodus from Egypt, included commandments (Ex. 20:1-17) along with rules governing Israel’s social life (Ex. 21-23) and worship system (Ex. 25-31). Together, the Mosaic covenant consisted of 613 commandments, of which the Ten Commandments are a summation (Ex. 20:1-17). The Sabbath was the sign of this covenant (Ex. 31:16-17). This covenant was bilateral, conditional, and nullifiable, being contingent on Israel’s obedience to God. Adherence to the Mosaic covenant was the means through which Israel could stay connected to the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Keeping the Mosaic covenant out of love to God would lead to spiritual and material prosperity, but disobedience would result in judgment, including removal from the land and dispersion throughout the nations (Deut. 28-29). The Mosaic covenant was a   gracious covenant. It was not a means of salvation but the God-intended way for Israel to show its love and commitment to God. Though Israel promised to obey (Ex. 24:1-8), the biblical record demonstrates that Israel disobeyed God and faced curses for breaking the covenant. In addition to continually violating the law, Israel perverted the law in two main ways. First, many Jews wrongly twisted the covenant to become a means of works- righteousness salvation (Rom. 9:30-32). Second, many emphasized the external rituals of the covenant at the expense of the heart of love (Mic. 6:6-8). The Mosaic covenant was holy, righteous, and good (Rom. 7:12). So the problem arising with the covenant was within the hearts of people, not in the covenant itself. The Mosaic covenant also revealed the people’s sinfulness (Rom. 3:20; 5:20; Gal. 3:19). The end of the Mosaic covenant as a rule of life occurred with the death of Jesus because he fulfilled the demands of the covenant and established the new covenant with his blood (Luke 22:20).[5]

Since the Mosaic covenant was given to Israel alone (Ex. 19:3; 34:27) and since Christ     brought an end to the covenant with his death (Eph. 2:14-15), Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant and its laws (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 5:18). That Christians are not under     the Mosaic law does not mean they are free to sin. They are joined to Christ and are     under the new covenant (Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 9:20-21)… The Christian is released from the        Mosaic law to serve in the new way of the Holy Spirit. The Christian, therefore, is not      lawless but is under a better law—the law of Christ and the new covenant. Only this time,       the Spirit enables the person to obey God willingly. That Christians are not under the             Mosaic covenant is evident since penalties for breaking this covenant are no longer           enforced. For example, sexual immorality was a capital offense under the Mosaic code           (Lev. 20:10-16), yet for an incest case in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul charged the church not to execute this person but to “purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:13).          Nevertheless, this is not to say that the Mosaic covenant is not relevant today, for it most        certainly is (2 Tim. 3:16)… The Mosaic covenant reveals unchanging attributes of and     truths about God’s character, which is the basis of his required principles for life. Paul     sometimes quotes Mosaic legislation as wisdom for right living (Eph. 6:1-2). Plus, God’s moral commands in the Old Testament show great continuity with what God expects from believers in this age. Nine of the original Ten Commandments are picked up and reapplied as part of the law of Christ in the New Testament—the one exception being the Sabbath command. The Israelites’ varied responses to the Mosaic law also offer examples that motivate believers to pursue godly living (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6).[6]

Progressive Dispensationalism on the Mosaic Covenant

Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook published by Progressive Dispensational scholars, we have determined that the following textbook is as useful as any other publication on this subject:

Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992).

However, for the purposes of this article, the commentary provided on the Mosaic Covenant is derived from Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock’s, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993). In this volume, Blaising and Bock expand on the central features of the Mosaic Covenant that were briefly encapsulated in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition. Thus, for the reader’s optimal benefit, both quotes representing Progressive Dispensationalism have been extracted from Blaising and Bock’s Progressive Dispensationalism.

Since these blessings are already promised in the covenant with Abraham [see above], what is the purpose of stating them in the form of a covenant at Sinai? The difference between the two covenants is seen first of all in Moses’ statement that the covenant made at Horeb (Sinai) was not made with the patriarchs (Deut. 5:3). Second, the two covenants have different forms. Whereas the covenant with Abraham was a grant covenant, the   Mosaic covenant follows the form of a Suzerain-vassal treaty, that is, a treaty between a   king (Suzerain) and his subjects (vassals). This kind of covenant is not a grant to a particular subject but a bilateral agreement between the king and the nation subject to him in which the king promises to allow his subjects to enjoy life under his beneficent reign in return for their loyal service to him. Conversely, he threatens to punish those who disobey his laws. As a bilateral treaty, the Mosaic covenant can be said to be fulfilled successively in the history of each generation of the descendants of the patriarchs. It is a   covenant which concerns the concrete, present relationship of Israel and Judah to God. In each generation, God manifests the blessing or the curse (or aspects of both) in response to the faith and obedience (or unbelief and disobedience) of the people. However,        predictions begin to arise in the latter prophets that the Mosaic covenant will be replaced by another covenant which will fulfill the intention God revealed in the Abrahamic promise. Consequently, in addition to its ongoing historical fulfillment, we will speak of a final fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant which the New Testament sees as taking place in Jesus Christ.[8] 

1689 Federalism on the Mosaic Covenant

The following texts represent a snapshot of the Mosaic Covenant from a Particular Baptist theological framework. Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook that holistically represents the Particular Baptist tradition, most contemporary Particular Baptists recognize Samuel Renihan’s, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019) as being a faithful portrayal of what they believe.

The Mosaic Covenant is a development of the Abrahamic Covenant in which God made promises which He would fulfill nationally to Abraham’s descendants while they, the descendants, must keep the covenant if they want to enjoy the benefits and blessings promised by God. The same kind of arrangement is established through the Mosaic Covenant. God declares the blessings He intends to pour out on Israel, but for the Israelites to enjoy the blessings, they must keep the covenant, the law. The nature and function of the laws of the covenant made through Moses demonstrate the kind of covenant that this is. The Mosaic Covenant revolves primarily, but not exclusively,  around the laws which God gave to Israel through Moses (Ex. 19:3-8)… This covenant is based on God’s commitment to bless the people of Abraham, and it is based on the people’s commitment to obey God’s laws. The context of the giving of the law is the        Exodus, God’s powerful and gracious actions to free Israel from Egypt. But added to       God’s kindness is a demand for loyalty. As for them, they must obey God’s voice and keep His covenant, so that they will be His treasured possession… Israel must obey the law in order to remain a blessed people. This is an identical arrangement to Genesis 17 where God rehearsed His kindness to Abraham before demanding obedience with a threat of disinheritance. The people with whom this covenant is transacted align identically with those of Genesis 17, the offspring of Abraham according to the flesh… This is a covenant based on obedience to the law. It has an oath of obedience and sanctions directed at those who must obey. If Israel obeys the law, they will enjoy the benefits of the covenant…  Because the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant work together, as two covenants governing the kingdom of Israel, the corporate and individual principles intertwine. God will provide the promised blessings to the people as a nation, corporately. Individually, those who are unfaithful will be cut off.[9]

Based on the laws, the promises, and the threats of the covenant, the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan… Whether the Israelites enjoy the land sworn to their fathers depends on whether they keep the commandments. Insofar as   Israel obeys the Mosaic law, they will enjoy the guaranteed blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. Insofar as Israel disobeys the Mosaic law, they will experience the guaranteed curses of the covenant (Deut. 30:15-20; Jer. 2:17-22)… The Mosaic Covenant controls everything [about the nation of theocratic Israel]. It governs the people in its various kinds of laws; it governs the priests, the kings, and the prophets. Everyone lives by the law of God. If they do, they will be blessed. If they don’t they will be cursed. As God had told Abraham that he and his descendants must keep the covenant or be cut off, so also the Mosaic Covenant expanded the very same relationship, controlling the enjoyment of the very same blessings. If the children of Abraham obey the law of Moses,     they will enjoy the blessings of Abraham. If they disobey, they will lose them. The        Abrahamic Covenant established the kingdom of Israel and lays out basic obligations.      The Mosaic Covenant expanded and implemented covenantal government over the kingdom as it arose and flourished in Canaan… [Moreover], the Mosaic Covenant advanced the mystery of Christ in monumental ways, the priesthood and the sacrifices being the chief among all. The blessing for the nations will emerge not just within    Canaan and the circumcised offspring of Abraham, but also within this complex of laws and statutes, within this system of priests and sacrifices, within this system of blessings and curses (Heb. 10:1).[10]

A Critical Analysis of the Primary Sources

Now that the reader has been acquainted with a thorough overview of how the Mosaic Covenant is understood by Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists, it is necessary to survey where these theological traditions agree and disagree. Thus, at minimum, all classifications of Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism would share agreement on these distinctives:

1. The Mosaic Covenant was formally inaugurated at Mount Sinai and remained in effect until the New Covenant was established with death of Jesus Christ.

• The Mosaic Covenant was only applicable to the nation of Israel.

• There is a three-fold division of the Mosaic Law: Moral; Civil; Ceremonial.

• The Mosaic Law—tied to the Mosaic Covenant—was never given as a way of salvation, but as a guide for how Israel was to function as a theocracy.

• By virtue of the Mosaic Covenant being bilateral, conditional, nullifiable, and being contingent on Israel’s faithfulness, adherence to the Mosaic Covenant was the means through which Israel could stay connected to the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists should be grateful to share likemindedness on these aspects of the Mosaic Covenant. However, there is at least one important issue pertaining to the Mosaic Covenant that distinguish 1689 Federalists from each variation of Dispensationalism: to what extent do the 10 Commandments apply to New Covenant believers? According to Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive Dispensationalists, the 10 Commandments only apply to New Covenant Christians insofar as they are reiterated throughout the New Testament.[11] Stated differently, despite acknowledging that all people are born with an innate knowledge of morality based on God’s law and despite the conscience reacting to behavior based on its compliance with that moral law (Rom. 2:14-16),[12] Dispensationalists do not believe the 10 Commandments are binding prior or subsequent to the New Covenant epoch of redemptive history. This is a seismic inconsistency that Dispensationalists must be pressed to explain!

If the Ten Commandments—as part of the Mosaic Covenant—were only applicable to Israel, then on what basis can the Apostle Paul condemn Gentiles—who have never expressly heard the Ten Commandments—by the Law written on their conscience (Rom. 2:14-16)? With specific reference to the previously cited passage, Paul is making an argument from natural law, which historically has been regarded as nothing less than the substance of the 10 Commandments.[13] If we take this Dispensational argument to its logical conclusion—that the 10 Commandments are only applicable to theocratic Israel during the Mosaic Covenant epoch of redemptive history—then Paul’s argument in Romans 2:14-16 does not work and Christians are thereby left with no doctrine of natural law. When viewed against the backdrop of church history, this is an unsatisfactory exegetical and theological conclusion to embrace.[14]

For Particular Baptists, it is recognized that the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant passed away with the redemptive-historical inauguration of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13).[15] However, the perpetuity and universal application of the Ten Commandments is grounded in their roots within the conscience of every image bearer to ever live (Rom. 2:14-16). This reality is further punctuated by John Gill in his commentary on the book of Romans.

Though the Gentiles had not the [moral] law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had “the work,” the matter, the sum and substance of [the moral law] in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall. Upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites. In regeneration, this law is reinscribed on the hearts of God’s people. But even amongst [unbelieving] Gentiles, in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, [as proven] by their outward conduct [and] by the inward motions of their minds.[16]

In the final analysis, the Ten Commandments put into writing what was already written on the conscience of every person prior to their promulgation at Sinai (Gen. 4:3-4; Ex. 12:15-20; 16:22-30). Moreover, in every generation following the Mosaic Covenant epoch, the substance of the Ten Commandments has been universally transcribed upon humanity (Rom. 1:18-23). As the moral dimension of the Mosaic law, the 10 Commandments function as a reflection of God’s character, directing humanity in how they are to be holy as their Creator is holy (Ex. 32:15-16; Lev. 11:44-47; 1 Pet. 1:15-16). On the Last Day, every unbeliever will be judged against this unchanging standard of divine righteousness, and every believer will be justified on the basis of Christ’s perfect conformity to its demands in their place (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:27-28). Therefore, when confronted with this Dispensational error in regard to the Mosaic Covenant, Particular Baptists must be willing to offer correction with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15). May the triune God enable charitable conversations to transpire between Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists on this salient topic.

In the next article of this series, we will continue our examination of “Dispensationalism’s Defunct Covenant Theology” by exploring how this system engages with the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16; 1 Chron. 17:1-14; Ps. 89). Stay tuned!

Soli Deo Gloria!

---

[1] In keeping with each of the previous articles of this series, these four literary works will serve as the primary sources for the Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive varieties of Dispensationalism, in supplementation to what is representative of a Particular Baptist theological framework.

[2] For the benefit of the reader, a lengthy elaboration on the Mosaic Covenant has been provided from Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993). Given the lack of a “standard” systematic theology textbook within the Progressive Dispensationalism tradition, the author felt it was necessary to consult an additional resource in supplementation to the primary text that has been utilized to expound Progressive Dispensationalism throughout this series. Exact citations from the SCRIBD edition of Progressive Dispensationalism will be provided in conjunction with the excerpts cited from Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church.

[3] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988), Pages 214-215.

[4] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Pages 314-317.

[5] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Pages 874-875.

[6] MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 875-876.

[7] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993), SCRIBD, Pages 192-194.

[8] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, SCRIBD, Pages 194-195, 205-206.

[9] Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 105-108.

[10] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 110, 121-122.

[11] The temporary and limited nature of the Ten Commandments is stressed in the following contexts: Chafer, Systematic Theology, Page 316; MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 875-876; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, SCRIBD, Pages 264-272.

[12] It is hard to reconcile Dispensational convictions that the Ten Commandments have no application outside of the nation of Israel—and outside of the Mosaic Covenant epoch—with statements such as these (in reference to Romans 2:14-16): “As God’s image bearers, all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong based on God’s law. The conscience reacts to behavior based on its compliance with that moral law or its violation of it. MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 420.

[13] A historical, Protestant synthesis of the relationship between natural law and the Ten Commandments can be seen here: E. J. Hutchinson, “The 10 Commandments Are the Foundation for Protestant Ethics,” Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture, April 28, 2020, https://mereorthodoxy.com/10-commandments-foundation-protestant-ethics/.

[14] David VanDrunen persuasively demonstrates the historical and biblical-theological foundations of natural law throughout church history (prior and subsequent to the Protestant Reformation): “Natural Law in Reformed Theology: Historical Reflections and Biblical Suggestions,” The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, April 2012, https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=301.

[15] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 160-161.

[16] John Gill, “Romans 2:15 Meaning and Commentary,” Bible Study Tools, accessed January 20, 2022, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/romans-2-15.html.