The covenants Abrahamic and Mosaic: consistent but not equal

 I disagree with my covenant theology brothers and sisters who claim that there is an overarching “Covenant of Grace” that encompasses all of redemptive history. I do not see this as taught in scripture, as they do. 

To be sure, all covenants between creatures and creator are infused with grace; it is self-evident that God is not obligated to establish any covenant with us. The mere existence of a covenant is an act of grace. But that is, of course, not what my covenantal friends mean by an overarching covenant of grace.

There is a priority of covenants, and in Galatians Paul teaches us of the superiority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. At the same time, he teaches that the covenants—superficially so different, are (when properly understood) consistent. The inconsistency arises only when first century Judaism (and 21^st century “Federal Visionaries”) misunderstand the Mosaic covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant based on a promise, a promise that God would bless many diverse people. There are only two responses to this beautiful and supremely simple covenant:  the negative response is to deny the promise; the positive response is to accept it by faith.

A key element of the Abrahamic covenant is this: while various camps (Arminian, Calvinistic, Catholic) may disagree on the details, we all agree that with the help of the Holy Spirit we have the power to attain faith and fulfill our requirement under the covenant. That is, we all agree that salvific faith is an achievable reality.

The Mosaic covenant, which comes 4.3 centuries later, is about obedience to the law. A hint that it is an inferior covenant is that the Abrahamic covenant came directly from the mouth of God while the Mosaic covenant (Gal. 3:19) was from angels and an intermediary (presumably Moses). Many, at least according to Paul, had their hands in the Mosaic covenant. Only one (a triune one) established the Abrahamic.

The first century Jews misunderstood the Mosaic covenant, believing that sin could be defeated by obedience to the law. The problem is, as Paul teaches, is that we have no power to obey. We have no power even though the moral law provided in the Mosaic covenant (the 10 commandments) was but a watered-down version of what was to come. Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself, when fleshed out, is way more challenging than the laws on the tablets. We are incapable of obeying the kindergarten version of the moral law, let alone the fuller revelation that Christ teaches.

This misrepresentation of the Mosaic covenant is indeed inconsistent with the Abrahamic covenant. A covenant that requires faith is entirely different from a covenant that requires obedience to laws. 

The proper understanding of the Mosaic covenant is this: At the time of Moses, the Abrahamic covenant still awaited its complete fulfillment.  Paul teaches us that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were made to Abraham and his offspring (singular). That offspring is Christ, who also (with the Father) will provide the necessary power, i.e. the Holy Spirit. The Mosaic covenant is a sort of intercalation between the Abrahamic covenant and its fulfillment. The purpose is not to teach us how avoid sinning, but to teach how we are sinning. The law doesn’t save, the point is rather the opposite: the purpose of the law is to point out that its own impotence: the law cannot save anyone. It is not in conflict with the Abrahamic covenant, because it does not offer an alternative route to life—it is a reminder of the fact that our only hope is the Abrahamic covenant. 

The Abrahamic covenant is still in effect, and through Christ and the Holy Spirit the promise has been fulfilled. It is sitting there, active and complete in all aspects. That is the gospel in covenantal terms. The Mosaic covenant, by contrast, had a shelf life. Paul tells us this explicitly:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal 3:19)

The promise was made to the offspring (Jesus) and the Mosaic covenant (the law) would only last until the offspring came. So… game over man.

Further indication that the Mosaic covenant and the law are dead (all off it, in Galatians Paul never stops to tell us he is only referring to the ceremonial or dietary or civil law. You would think this would be the prime teachable moment if he wanted to make that point) comes in Galatians chapter the fourth, verses 1-7. Here Paul is using a metaphor (or some other figure of speech—the distinctions are more difficult than quantum mechanics)  that being under the law is like being children, and being a child is something like being a slave. The child/slave is under “guardians and managers” (the law) but not forever, only until the date set by his father. 

The tendency to reestablish the Mosaic covenant is everywhere in the modern reformed community and represents (in spite of its claims to the opposite) a degradation of historic reformed theology. It is most evident in the insistence that the decalogue (as opposed to the more rigorous sermon on the mount) is still the codification of God’s moral law. That mistake is, rather transparently, the same category error as was made by Paul’s nemeses, the Judaizers.