Very true and helpful about the priority of grace and our sanctification found in Christ. But this pattern is not the opposite of the Mosaic covenant (or any of the other of God's covenants). God called and initiated a relationship with Abraham by grace, then gave him covenant law to follow. Same with Moses. God saved Israel from Egypt and made them his people by grace (see e.g., the introductory words of the 10 Commandments or the history recounted in the early chapters of Deuteronomy, and the whole sacrificial system that assumes the priority and necessity of grace and his cleansing as the basis for life with God), and then gave them covenant law to obey as God's redeemed people. Neither is the new covenant in Christ void of blessings promised for believers and curses for unbelief. See Matthew 23 or the whole book of Hebrews! The tragedy of the Mosaic covenant was not that it offered a legal, non-gracious covenant rather than a grace-based one (the Mosaic covenant, after all, is an administration of the covenant of grace); rather, it was that so few people actually believed from the heart and received the grace that God offered them as the basis for their obedience. That is the problem fixed in the era of the new covenant when more people than ever come to embrace God and his grace from the heart by the work of the Spirit. And most Matthew commentators stress that the sequence from Jesus' baptism to wilderness sojourn & temptation to teaching given on a mountain (where he interprets Mosaic law) does indeed establish Jesus as a new and greater Moses, i.e.,. Matthew is employing typology that shows Jesus fulfilling a pattern in the life and ministry of Moses.
Mike, thanks for your thoughtful comments! I agree with some of the things you've written here, but not everything. I certainly agree that God initiated his relationship with Abraham by grace, but I wouldn't characterize what followed as a "law covenant." Certainly the Abrahamic covenant contained obligations (as does the new covenant), but according to Paul in Gal 3 & 4, it is summarized by the word "promise," whereas the Mosaic covenant is summarized by the word "law" (and the two are then contrasted for this very reason). Now, according to Dt 7:12, the Mosaic covenant was new (not the same as the one made with the fathers). And according to Jeremiah, the new covenant will not be the same as the Sinai covenant). For these and other reasons, which perhaps we can talk about sometime, I've become increasingly skeptical of the language found in the Westminster Confession that these covenants are "different administrations" of a single covenant of grace. The biblical language of an "obsolete covenant" contrasted with a "new covenant" (Heb 8:13) seems to make clear that the Sinai covenant and the new covenant are entirely distinct.
I agree with you that there are blessings for belief/curses for unbelief running through all the covenants, but the heart of the Mosaic covenant is law obedience, not faith (Gal 3:12). Now, of course, this doesn't mean that OT saints were ultimately saved by law-keeping (I'm not a dispensationalist). Though the law revealed everyone's guilt (Ps 143:2), the Abrahamic promise wasn't made void (Gal 3:17), therefore Christ was the solution to their problem, just as he is to ours. But when Jesus came, the Mosaic covenant was made void (Lk 16:16, Heb 8:13, Gal 3:24, Eph 2:15, etc.) In fact, Paul says it came to an end because, ultimately, it was a "ministry of death" (2Cor 3:7, 11). If you're interested, one of the books that has influenced me a great deal along these lines is T. David Gordon's book, Promise, Law, Faith.
Very true and helpful about the priority of grace and our sanctification found in Christ. But this pattern is not the opposite of the Mosaic covenant (or any of the other of God's covenants). God called and initiated a relationship with Abraham by grace, then gave him covenant law to follow. Same with Moses. God saved Israel from Egypt and made them his people by grace (see e.g., the introductory words of the 10 Commandments or the history recounted in the early chapters of Deuteronomy, and the whole sacrificial system that assumes the priority and necessity of grace and his cleansing as the basis for life with God), and then gave them covenant law to obey as God's redeemed people. Neither is the new covenant in Christ void of blessings promised for believers and curses for unbelief. See Matthew 23 or the whole book of Hebrews! The tragedy of the Mosaic covenant was not that it offered a legal, non-gracious covenant rather than a grace-based one (the Mosaic covenant, after all, is an administration of the covenant of grace); rather, it was that so few people actually believed from the heart and received the grace that God offered them as the basis for their obedience. That is the problem fixed in the era of the new covenant when more people than ever come to embrace God and his grace from the heart by the work of the Spirit. And most Matthew commentators stress that the sequence from Jesus' baptism to wilderness sojourn & temptation to teaching given on a mountain (where he interprets Mosaic law) does indeed establish Jesus as a new and greater Moses, i.e.,. Matthew is employing typology that shows Jesus fulfilling a pattern in the life and ministry of Moses.
Mike, thanks for your thoughtful comments! I agree with some of the things you've written here, but not everything. I certainly agree that God initiated his relationship with Abraham by grace, but I wouldn't characterize what followed as a "law covenant." Certainly the Abrahamic covenant contained obligations (as does the new covenant), but according to Paul in Gal 3 & 4, it is summarized by the word "promise," whereas the Mosaic covenant is summarized by the word "law" (and the two are then contrasted for this very reason). Now, according to Dt 7:12, the Mosaic covenant was new (not the same as the one made with the fathers). And according to Jeremiah, the new covenant will not be the same as the Sinai covenant). For these and other reasons, which perhaps we can talk about sometime, I've become increasingly skeptical of the language found in the Westminster Confession that these covenants are "different administrations" of a single covenant of grace. The biblical language of an "obsolete covenant" contrasted with a "new covenant" (Heb 8:13) seems to make clear that the Sinai covenant and the new covenant are entirely distinct.
I agree with you that there are blessings for belief/curses for unbelief running through all the covenants, but the heart of the Mosaic covenant is law obedience, not faith (Gal 3:12). Now, of course, this doesn't mean that OT saints were ultimately saved by law-keeping (I'm not a dispensationalist). Though the law revealed everyone's guilt (Ps 143:2), the Abrahamic promise wasn't made void (Gal 3:17), therefore Christ was the solution to their problem, just as he is to ours. But when Jesus came, the Mosaic covenant was made void (Lk 16:16, Heb 8:13, Gal 3:24, Eph 2:15, etc.) In fact, Paul says it came to an end because, ultimately, it was a "ministry of death" (2Cor 3:7, 11). If you're interested, one of the books that has influenced me a great deal along these lines is T. David Gordon's book, Promise, Law, Faith.