The law in the covenant of grace

[Sam Jer]

Is the decalogue part of that dispensation of the covenant of grace? Is it's interpretation in Deuteronomy? If it is, what's this passage doing here? Where is Moses transitioning?
Or is perhaps the law just given as the law, with all three uses baked in?
Does this have to do with "republication"? I heard the term thrown around but I am not sure I understand what it means.

Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen. Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Sorry if this has an obvious answer, I was a dispensationalist baptist until very recently.

 

[Ioannes]

I have thought about that a lot myself, like you I have not been raised on covenant theology so it certainly was not obvious to me.
When I had these questions I was directed to "The Marrow of Modern Divinity", a pretty excellent book. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/fisher/TheMarrowEdward Fisher.pdf
This information in the footnotes was particularly helpful to me in understanding how Sinai relates to the covenants. Quite a long quote, so it might be easier to read on the bottom of page 79 on the link provided, footnote [4]

Howbeit, the preface to the ten commandments deserves a particular notice in the matter of the Sinai transaction, (Exo 20:2), "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Hence it is evident to me, that the covenant of grace was delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. For the Son of God, the messenger of the covenant of grace, spoke these words to a select people, the natural seed of Abraham, typical of his whole spiritual seed. He avoucheth himself to be their God; namely, in virtue of the promise, or covenant made with Abraham, (Gen 17:7), "I will establish my covenantto be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee": and their God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt; according to the promise made to Abraham at the most solemn renewal of the covenant with him. (Gen 15:14), "Afterwards shall they come out with great substance. And he first declares himself their God, and then requires obedience, according to the manner of the covenant with Abraham, (Gen 17:1); "I am the Almighty God, [i.e. in the language of the covenant, The Almighty God TO THEE, to make THEE for ever blest through the promised SEED,] walk thou before me, and be thou perfect." But that the covenant of works was also, for special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, I cannot refuse, 1. Because of the apostle's testimony, (Gal 4:24), "These are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage." For the children of this Sinai covenant the apostle here treats of, are excluded from the eternal inheritance, as Ishmael was from Canaan, the type of it, (verse 30), "Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman"; but this could never be said of the children of the covenant of grace under any dispensation, though both the law and covenant from Sinai itself, and its children, were even before the coming of Christ under a sentence of exclusion, to be executed on them respectively in due time. 2. The nature of the covenant of works is most expressly in the New Testament brought in, propounded, and explained from the Mosaical dispensation. The commands of it from Exodus 20 by our blessed Saviour, (Matt 19:17-19), "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery," &c. The promise of it, (Rom 10:5), "Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them." The commands and promise of it together, see Luke 10:25-28. The terrible sanction of it, Galations 3:10. For it is written [viz: Deuteronomy 27:26,] "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." 3. To this may be added the opposition betwixt the law and grace, so frequently inculcated in the New Testament, especially in Paul's epistles. See one text for all, (Gal 3:12), "And the law is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them." 4. The law from Mount Sinai was a covenant, (Gal 4:24), "These are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai"; and such a covenant as had a semblance of disannulling the covenant of grace, (Gal 3:17), "The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul"; yea, such an one as did, in its own nature, bear a method of obtaining the inheritance, so far different from that of the promise, that it was inconsistent with it; "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal 3:18), wherefore the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai could not be the covenant of grace, unless one will make this last not only a covenant seeming to destroy itself, but really inconsistent: but it was the covenant of works, which indeed had such a semblance, and in its own nature did bear such a method as before noted; howbeit, as Ainsworth says, "The covenant of the law now given could not disannul the covenant of grace," (Gal 3:17). Annot. on Exodus 19:1 Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, The covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgate there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the ten commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and sanction thereof, repeated and promulgate to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed; and yet were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour's saying to him, (Matt 19:17,18), "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandmentsThou shalt do no murder," &c. The latter was a repetition of the former. Thus there is no confounding of the two covenants of grace and works; but the latter was added to the former as subservient unto it, to turn their eyes towards the promise, or covenant of grace: "God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? it was added, because of transgressions, till the Seed should come," (Gal 3:18,19). So it was unto the promise given to Abraham, that this subservient covenant was added; and that promise we have found in the preface to the ten commands. To it, then was the subservient covenant, according to the apostle, added, put, or set to, as the word properly signifies. So it was no part of the covenant of grace, the which was entire to the fathers, before the time that was set to it; and yet is, to the New Testament church, after that is taken away from it: for, says the apostle, "It was added till the seed should come." Hence it appears that the covenant of grace was, both in itself, and in God's intention, the principal part of the Sinai transaction: nevertheless, the covenant of works was the most conspicuous part of it, and lay most open to the view of the people. According to this account of the Sinai transaction, the ten commands, there delivered, must come under a twofold notion or consideration; namely, as the law of Christ, and as the law of works: and this is not strange, if it is considered, that they were twice written on tables of stone, by the Lord himself,the first tables the work of God, (Exo 32:16), which were broken in pieces, (verse 19), called the tables of the covenant, (Deut 9:11,15)the second tables, the work of Moses, the typical Mediator, (Exo 34:1), deposited at first [it would seem] in the tabernacle mentioned, (33:7), afterward, at the rearing of the tabernacle with all its furniture, laid up in the ark within the tabernacle, (25:16); and whether or not, some such thing is intimated, by the double accentuation of the decalogue, let the learned determine; but to the ocular inspection it is evident, that the preface to the ten commands, (Exo 20:2, Deut 5:6), stands in the original, both as a part of a sentence joined to the first commands, and also as an entire sentence, separated from it, and shut up by itself. Upon the whole, one may compare with this the first promulgation of the covenant of grace, by the messenger of the covenant in paradise, (Gen 3:15), and the flaming sword placed there by the same hand, "turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

Edit: I am also not entirely sure of the details surrounding republication but I think this is related.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is the decalogue part of that dispensation of the covenant of grace? Is it's interpretation in Deuteronomy? If it is, what's this passage doing here? Where is Moses transitioning?
Or is perhaps the law just given as the law, with all three uses baked in?
Does this have to do with "republication"? I heard the term thrown around but I am not sure I understand what it means.

Sorry if this has an obvious answer, I was a dispensationalist baptist until very recently.

Even in Israel, the moral law (10 Commandments) was "set off," so to speak, from that constitutional law-document that was the whole Law of Moses/Sinai (see Ex.34:28; Dt.4:13). These were the lines inscribed on the tablets of stone. The 10C was the moral cornerstone, on which the rest of that legislation was framed. You have quoted an extended passage from Dt.27, which is not the 10C per se, but is part of the planned ceremony of covenant renewal that was for Israel to perform when entered in the Promised Land. The 10C are found in Ex.20:1-17; and the event is explicitly recalled in Dt.5:6-21, but see also v22. God spoke those words in the ears of the thousands of Israel gathered to listen; but Moses was the mediator appointed to relay the rest of God's covenant. Deuteronomy contains many sermons Moses spoke to Israel expounding the law for the people for especially the day when they were settled in Canaan. To interpret Moses faithfully, we have to understand him in his context, before we can proceed to apprehending the lesson for our context. And that is not done simply by reading the text as if it was written to me in my context. God's word was written for me.

We recognize that this law may be summarized in the 10C, but it did not come new into existence with the giving of the Law; but was integral to the human body-soul integrity from creation. Even the fall into sin could not efface the result of the finger of God, as it were, on the heart; but even rebellious man retains some vestige of universal right vs. wrong. In the renewal of the soul by the Holy Spirit and divine grace, God puts the law "back" in the heart, doing a work of restoration. Believers find, then, in the Decalogue, all the true uses for which it exists: general curbing of wickedness, conviction of sin, and counsel for the godly, the last being guidance unsuited for any but the redeemed. It is not timebound, precisely because it speaks to a common human nature.

It should be understood that when God promised by his prophets to put his law within his people, he did not intend his people should instinctively know the legal minutiae of the Mosaic code. If this wasn't clear before Christ, it certainly is after his exaltation, and the removal of the temporary (if long-lasting) legal condition of the Old Covenant, with its many ceremonial and judicial specifics oriented to the former age. But the "royal law" is that which Adam had, and lost, and which has been recommitted to the holy people forever. Sanctification is part of the ongoing work of God to reinscribe and perfect the saint's way of walking in God's will, henceforth by divine grace.

So far as republication goes, the term has its origin in the history of Reformed thought. It relates to the question of the nature of the Mosaic administration (that era of God's dealing with his church). There are different "kinds" of republication, i.e. different ways of reckoning with the "legal character" of that administration. Not all those ways are fully compatible with our standard confessional outlook. But the best way (in my opinion) is that we see reflected in the Law-covenant the reality of the first-covenant in Eden, which was of works; while not failing to recognize that the outer legal glory-expression contained within it the essence of the covenant of grace, in operation all along and without hiatus since the fall.

Those who only partook of the covenant externally, only partook of the law and glory; they were (to use Paul's phrase) merely outwardly Jewish, and not inwardly of the heart. They used the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple services, without ever saying with the publican, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," which was the essence of sacrifices, everything pointing to the ultimate fulfillment of the Law from beginning to end. Of course, there were countless Israelites/Jews who partook in both the external covenant and the internal covenant reality, from the Exodus all the way to the cross. These latter were not blind to the gospel preached beforehand, in and by the types. They were engaged in their covenant not as a works-based system, but as it was meant to teach them of God's grace and mercy. "God be merciful to me/On thy grace I rest my plea," Ps.51:1 (metrical).

 

[Polanus1561]

There was an altar for sacrifices here

 

[Sam Jer]

Even in Israel, the moral law (10 Commandments) was "set off," so to speak, from that constitutional law-document that was the whole Law of Moses/Sinai (see Ex.34:28; Dt.4:13). These were the lines inscribed on the tablets of stone. The 10C was the moral cornerstone, on which the rest of that legislation was framed. You have quoted an extended passage from Dt.27, which is not the 10C per se, but is part of the planned ceremony of covenant renewal that was for Israel to perform when entered in the Promised Land. The 10C are found in Ex.20:1-17; and the event is explicitly recalled in Dt.5:6-21, but see also v22. God spoke those words in the ears of the thousands of Israel gathered to listen; but Moses was the mediator appointed to relay the rest of God's covenant. Deuteronomy contains many sermons Moses spoke to Israel expounding the law for the people for especially the day when they were settled in Canaan. To interpret Moses faithfully, we have to understand him in his context, before we can proceed to apprehending the lesson for our context. And that is not done simply by reading the text as if it was written to me in my context. God's word was written for me.

We recognize that this law may be summarized in the 10C, but it did not come new into existence with the giving of the Law; but was integral to the human body-soul integrity from creation. Even the fall into sin could not efface the result of the finger of God, as it were, on the heart; but even rebellious man retains some vestige of universal right vs. wrong. In the renewal of the soul by the Holy Spirit and divine grace, God puts the law "back" in the heart, doing a work of restoration. Believers find, then, in the Decalogue, all the true uses for which it exists: general curbing of wickedness, conviction of sin, and counsel for the godly, the last being guidance unsuited for any but the redeemed. It is not timebound, precisely because it speaks to a common human nature.

It should be understood that when God promised by his prophets to put his law within his people, he did not intend his people should instinctively know the legal minutiae of the Mosaic code. If this wasn't clear before Christ, it certainly is after his exaltation, and the removal of the temporary (if long-lasting) legal condition of the Old Covenant, with its many ceremonial and judicial specifics oriented to the former age. But the "royal law" is that which Adam had, and lost, and which has been recommitted to the holy people forever. Sanctification is part of the ongoing work of God to reinscribe and perfect the saint's way of walking in God's will, henceforth by divine grace.

So far as republication goes, the term has its origin in the history of Reformed thought. It relates to the question of the nature of the Mosaic administration (that era of God's dealing with his church). There are different "kinds" of republication, i.e. different ways of reckoning with the "legal character" of that administration. Not all those ways are fully compatible with our standard confessional outlook. But the best way (in my opinion) is that we see reflected in the Law-covenant the reality of the first-covenant in Eden, which was of works; while not failing to recognize that the outer legal glory-expression contained within it the essence of the covenant of grace, in operation all along and without hiatus since the fall.

Those who only partook of the covenant externally, only partook of the law and glory; they were (to use Paul's phrase) merely outwardly Jewish, and not inwardly of the heart. They used the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple services, without ever saying with the publican, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," which was the essence of sacrifices, everything pointing to the ultimate fulfillment of the Law from beginning to end. Of course, there were countless Israelites/Jews who partook in both the external covenant and the internal covenant reality, from the Exodus all the way to the cross. These latter were not blind to the gospel preached beforehand, in and by the types. They were engaged in their covenant not as a works-based system, but as it was meant to teach them of God's grace and mercy. "God be merciful to me/On thy grace I rest my plea," Ps.51:1 (metrical).

Does this mean that the moral law as a condemning document with curses was given to and for all the Jews, for conviction and condemnation, but the law with it's covenant promises signified through the types and shadows was given for the inwardly Jewish only (though given to all), as a promise for remission of sins?

 

[Apologia Christou]

Is the decalogue part of that dispensation of the covenant of grace? Is it's interpretation in Deuteronomy? If it is, what's this passage doing here? Where is Moses transitioning?
Or is perhaps the law just given as the law, with all three uses baked in?
Does this have to do with "republication"? I heard the term thrown around but I am not sure I understand what it means.

Sorry if this has an obvious answer, I was a dispensationalist baptist until very recently.

The Decalogue was written in the heart of man by creation. I think everyone agrees here. But there is a difference how reformed people see the mosaic covenant itself. Is this covenant part of the covenant of grace or works? John Owen argues that it is basically the covenant of works republicated (that’s the idea behind the term), whereas the majority sees it not so. So, basically, what John Owen is saying by it is this: people were saved under the mosaic covenant, but not by means of it. And this is a crucial difference. People were saved by means of the covenant of grace (which was then only contained and exhibited in promises of the seed of the woman, the Messiah), which covenant of grace was formerly and lawfully established only in the New Testament by the blood of Christ. Until then, grace operated simply by the promise of Christ, alongside all the other covenants and dispensations.

Here is a summary of that: https://www.christurc.org/blog/2011...-owen-on-republication-in-the-mosaic-covenant

And you can read Owen himself on that, he covered a whole bunch of pages on this topic in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is free on monergism.com.

 

[Apologia Christou]

And since you said that you were a dispensationalist until very recently, here is a free course on covenant theology by Ligon Duncan: https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/ms/+635a671

He also goes into specific differences with dispensationalism, but he basically covers everything on that topic as far as time allows. I think this is a very good introduction and starting point.

 

[Sam Jer]

The Decalogue was written in the heart of man by creation. I think everyone agrees here. But there is a difference how reformed people see the mosaic covenant itself. Is this covenant part of the covenant of grace or works? John Owen argues that it is basically the covenant of works republicated (that’s the idea behind the term), whereas the majority sees it not so. So, basically, what John Owen is saying by it is this: people were saved under the mosaic covenant, but not by means of it. And this is a crucial difference. People were saved by means of the covenant of grace (which was then only contained and exhibited in promises of the seed of the woman, the Messiah), which covenant of grace was formerly and lawfully established only in the New Testament by the blood of Christ. Until then, grace operated simply by the promise of Christ, alongside all the other covenants and dispensations.

Here is a summary of that: https://www.christurc.org/blog/2011...-owen-on-republication-in-the-mosaic-covenant

And you can read Owen himself on that, he covered a whole bunch of pages on this topic in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is free on monergism.com.

Is this what is often called "baptist covenant theology", or did he still see some of the covenants in genesis as administrations of the covenant of grace?

And since you said that you were a dispensationalist until very recently, here is a free course on covenant theology by Ligon Duncan: https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/ms/+635a671

He also goes into specific differences with dispensationalism, but he basically covers everything on that topic as far as time allows. I think this is a very good introduction and starting point.

Thank you

 

[Apologia Christou]

Is this what is often called "baptist covenant theology", or did he still see some of the covenants in genesis as administrations of the covenant of grace?

To be honest, I don’t really know that. All I know is that he is very specific and careful not to put the mosaic covenant into the covenant of grace, since Scripture throughout has very specific language concerning the law.

But Owen argues very firmly for infant baptism, and says that you can not change a privilege once granted by God until he has specifically abrogated it. And so, since God never abrogated the Abrahamic covenant, but only the law (Mosaic covenant), Owen sees no reason not to baptize children. And so there clearly is the connection between the Abrahamic and New Covenant, as also the language of the New Testament indicates, always referring back to it, and to the faith and privileges of Abraham.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Does this mean that the moral law as a condemning document with curses was given to and for all the Jews, for conviction and condemnation, but the law with it's covenant promises signified through the types and shadows was given for the inwardly Jewish only (though given to all), as a promise for remission of sins?

(Understand that a portion of my response is for the purpose of broadening awareness, to see what is going on in the text; so that a precise way of speaking to answer the question avoids misunderstanding)

Why does God make Abraham the father of one, specific nation, a people distinguishable from other nations and tribes of the earth? Why did he multiply that people, and eventually call them bodily out of Egypt? Why did he aid in their organization and supply, and hand to them what amounts to an earthly Constitution, in anticipation of settling them in a Promised Land to live under his reign and law?

If one answers, "In order to bless them," that's not a wrong answer. It isn't the whole answer. It isn't even the main answer. To clean up a bit of terminology, the Sinai Constitution is for Israel, the covenanted nation. Post-exile (after a millennium of time), the remnant of national return is comprised largely of them identifying with the tribe of Judah, hence the later term, Jew. Obviously, a NT era Jew would say the law was given to and for him as an Israelite; but in dealing with the OT documents themselves as originally possessed, it's best to use the terminology from the appropriate era.

The chief reason why Israel was constituted is for the Savior of the world to come from there. The world waits, largely in ignorance; but it's more important that the majority could know if properly motivated, and that the covenant-people maintain awareness of their divine mission as witness to the Gentiles. In many respects, Israel fails in its mission not unlike Adam failed in his. Like father, like son.

We shouldn't say, or say barely, that the Law (in toto, moral, ceremonial, civil) is given to and for Israel to curse or condemn them. Adam's constitutional law was not given him for the purpose of condemning him, but for setting the conditions and maintenance of his blessed estate, especially fellowship with God. Continuing in his blessedness rested entirely on his obedience; and there was an explicit threat in his law to curse him for disobedience.

Israel's law also contains threats: disowning, disinheritance, exile; but also explicit blessing. For instance, Dt.27:15-26 may not be separated from Dt.28:1-14 immediately following, which expresses the blessing of the covenant. As Israel is formed into an oath-bound church-state, they swear: "All that the LORD says, we will do," Ex.24:3. Whatever their actual strength, they pledge their diligent devotion and obedience. By Ex.32 (the golden calf incident), they have broken their word. The LORD declares his intention to follow through on his covenant threat and cast them off. Moses' intercessory, priestly mediation for the people sees the LORD spare the covenant-breakers.

What one may see, then, from the inception of the Sinai covenant--though it is cast in exacting legal terminology--is how there must be grace and mercy within this covenant, beneath its surface. Indeed, as Paul writes Gal.3:17, the covenant with Abraham by promise is foundational to the Sinaitic superstructure. The Sinai covenant administers the covenant of grace, though it bears in its outward glory-aspect (ala 2Cor.3) the severe quality of "do this and live." Yet still, let none forget the preamble to the 10C moral-law-cornerstone: "I... brought you out of Egypt." That alone is a salvation statement which is entirely of grace, seeing as Israel had no hand in its own deliverance.

The work of the Levitical priest carries on the intercessory act of Moses, generation after generation. The sacrifices plead for justice to be delayed and diverted. In their basic character, Israel's sacrifices are not the offerings of an upright people, but a fallen one. While many Israelites might love the law, and keeping it (by degrees) think of themselves as "righteous" in relation to it; only those prepared at any moment to substitute the word "forgiven" for that description were actually worthy of it.

I think I've addressed your question, but ask away...

 

[JTB.SDG]

This may help: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/single-post/the-requirement-of-the-mosaic-covenant

 

[Sam Jer]

(Understand that a portion of my response is for the purpose of broadening awareness, to see what is going on in the text; so that a precise way of speaking to answer the question avoids misunderstanding)

Why does God make Abraham the father of one, specific nation, a people distinguishable from other nations and tribes of the earth? Why did he multiply that people, and eventually call them bodily out of Egypt? Why did he aid in their organization and supply, and hand to them what amounts to an earthly Constitution, in anticipation of settling them in a Promised Land to live under his reign and law?

If one answers, "In order to bless them," that's not a wrong answer. It isn't the whole answer. It isn't even the main answer. To clean up a bit of terminology, the Sinai Constitution is for Israel, the covenanted nation. Post-exile (after a millennium of time), the remnant of national return is comprised largely of them identifying with the tribe of Judah, hence the later term, Jew. Obviously, a NT era Jew would say the law was given to and for him as an Israelite; but in dealing with the OT documents themselves as originally possessed, it's best to use the terminology from the appropriate era.

The chief reason why Israel was constituted is for the Savior of the world to come from there. The world waits, largely in ignorance; but it's more important that the majority could know if properly motivated, and that the covenant-people maintain awareness of their divine mission as witness to the Gentiles. In many respects, Israel fails in its mission not unlike Adam failed in his. Like father, like son.

We shouldn't say, or say barely, that the Law (in toto, moral, ceremonial, civil) is given to and for Israel to curse or condemn them. Adam's constitutional law was not given him for the purpose of condemning him, but for setting the conditions and maintenance of his blessed estate, especially fellowship with God. Continuing in his blessedness rested entirely on his obedience; and there was an explicit threat in his law to curse him for disobedience.

Israel's law also contains threats: disowning, disinheritance, exile; but also explicit blessing. For instance, Dt.27:15-26 may not be separated from Dt.28:1-14 immediately following, which expresses the blessing of the covenant. As Israel is formed into an oath-bound church-state, they swear: "All that the LORD says, we will do," Ex.24:3. Whatever their actual strength, they pledge their diligent devotion and obedience. By Ex.32 (the golden calf incident), they have broken their word. The LORD declares his intention to follow through on his covenant threat and cast them off. Moses' intercessory, priestly mediation for the people sees the LORD spare the covenant-breakers.

What one may see, then, from the inception of the Sinai covenant--though it is cast in exacting legal terminology--is how there must be grace and mercy within this covenant, beneath its surface. Indeed, as Paul writes Gal.3:17, the covenant with Abraham by promise is foundational to the Sinaitic superstructure. The Sinai covenant administers the covenant of grace, though it bears in its outward glory-aspect (ala 2Cor.3) the severe quality of "do this and live." Yet still, let none forget the preamble to the 10C moral-law-cornerstone: "I... brought you out of Egypt." That alone is a salvation statement which is entirely of grace, seeing as Israel had no hand in its own deliverance.

The work of the Levitical priest carries on the intercessory act of Moses, generation after generation. The sacrifices plead for justice to be delayed and diverted. In their basic character, Israel's sacrifices are not the offerings of an upright people, but a fallen one. While many Israelites might love the law, and keeping it (by degrees) think of themselves as "righteous" in relation to it; only those prepared at any moment to substitute the word "forgiven" for that description were actually worthy of it.

I think I've addressed your question, but ask away...

Would you say it is right to say the law, in it's blessings and curses, was given for condemnation, but condemnation meant to drive the Israelites to put their'e faith in the promise of salvation, rather than condemnation for the sake of condemnation?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would you say it is right to say the law, in it's blessings and curses, was given for condemnation, but condemnation meant to drive the Israelites to put their faith in the promise of salvation, rather than condemnation for the sake of condemnation?

If I understand you correctly, I agree with this position: that the law as law given to Israel as its duty was--being the strategic interest of God himself--always an unbearable burden (Act.15:10); and therefore would condemn those who undertook its charter. The omniscient God knew from the start this covenant was impossible for sinners to keep, and Israel would immediately fail (Ex.32), persisting in failure and never improving as though to gain proficiency by centuries long practice; and he told them so in the next and "conquering" generation by his prophet (Jos.24:19).

And for this reason, the "hidden" purpose in the Law of Moses was: pointing the guilty lot not to self-improvement or penance, or to watering down the Law's demands or its penalties; but to the promise of Messiah as the solution to the problem. The surface purpose in the Law, which was flawless obedience, was no chimera of idealism; but was destined to be kept by the perfect Israelite, an Israel-of-One, keeping covenant in the will of his Father to the ultimate degree of obedience, even unto death (Php.2:8). This anticipated superlative law-keeping by the Coming One should in no way have reduced the average Israelite's motive to strive for a life marked by his own obedience. He would not be striving for merit, but for love of the LORD his God, Savior, and sender of Christ.

Only repentant people, who should be disinherited and dispatched if brought to the bar of justice, who ask for nothing but mercy, are received into the the one Seed's kingdom. "His father has given him all that he has," Gen.24:36. "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand," Jn.3:35; 13:3. The Son gives what is his to his dependents, his brethren, no more his servants but his friends, Jn.15:15. Jesus says concerning his Spirit who he sends, "He will take from mine and will reveal it to you," Jn.16:14. As the husband of the wife shares all his goods with her, so the Head of the church enters into union with his people and they lack for nothing, 1Cor.3:21-23. But apart from him, they have nothing and can do nothing, Jn.15:5.

Israel mishandled the Law as its stewards as they were destined to do, but not so that they as a body should be hoisted upon it as a display of divine wrath and the praise of God's glorious justice, as Pharaoh and the host of him were (Rom.9:22). The law that condemns the unbelieving of Abraham's descendants is the same law that condemns the rest of the unbelieving from the Gentiles. It is the covenant of works that condemns. The Law entrusted to Israel, to the extent it reminded men of the covenant of works, condemned them. But condemnation of mankind or Israel in particular was not its ultimate design.

 

[Polanus1561]

The mercy seat that receives the blood, covered the ark which contained the law. That is how Israel was to see the law.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Would you say it is right to say the law, in it's blessings and curses, was given for condemnation, but condemnation meant to drive the Israelites to put their'e faith in the promise of salvation, rather than condemnation for the sake of condemnation?

It was given to drive them to Christ. It's like having the covenant of works constantly before ones eyes. The law reveals our sinful and desperate condition. We need help.

Acts 15,10–11 (KJV 1900): Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.