112. Chapter 2: The Church from Abraham to the Law, or Sinai
------------ CHAPTER TWO ------------ The Church from Abraham to the Law, or Sinai
During the time preceding Abraham -- a period of approximately two thousand years -- the church consisted of an indiscriminate variety of nationalities, there being no connection with any particular nation or locality. Beginning with Abraham, however, God made a distinction among the nations. He established the church among the descendants of Abraham, and in a given locality, determining this to be Canaan. Thereby one could acquire knowledge about the Christ who was to come with that much more certainty. By way of ancestry, Christ descended from Adam and was thus the promised seed of the woman. Subsequently, this seed was restricted to Abraham, thereafter to Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and finally to David, after whom there was no further restriction. The distinction between the church before and after Abraham does not relate to the practice of religion (this being one and the same), but rather to her being restricted to one nation. Subsequent to the church having been restricted to Abraham’s seed, several transformations occurred. They can be reduced to six: 1) from Abraham to Moses, 2) from Moses to the Judges 3:1-31) from the judges to the kings, 4) from the kings to the captivity in Babylon, 5) from the beginning of the captivity to the return to Canaan, and 6) from this return to Christ, all of which comprehends a period of approximately two thousand years. The Church from Abraham to Moses
Abraham, the son of Terah, Nahor, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Selah, Arphaxad, Shem, and Noah, lived in Mesopotamia (which in our language means “the land between two rivers”), in a city named Ur, thereafter inhabited by the Chaldeans. Soon after the flood, true religion had been corrupted -- even in the generation of Shem, among whose descendants the church existed until Christ. Abraham’s ancestors had become very degenerate, and, like Abraham, were worshipers of idols (cf. Joshua 24:14-15). Thus, there was not the least probability for true religion to be restored in their generational line -- much less for the church to exist strictly among their descendants. But God, who in all things manifests His sovereign grace, called Abraham in an extraordinary manner and revealed to him that the Messiah would come forth from him -- commanding him to leave his country and kindred. He was to go to a different land, the location of which God did not reveal to him at that time. God only told him that He would show it to him. Abraham obeyed God, left Ur, and resided for a period of time in Haran, also located in Mesopotamia. After his father’s death, however, Abraham departed from Haran as well, and crossed the river Euphrates, taking with him his wife Sarah, his brother’s son, Lot, and all that belonged to him -- his possessions as well as those servants and maids who were his property. After much roaming about, he entered Canaan near Sichem and settled there, not knowing that this was the land that God would show to him. There God appeared to him and promised that his seed would inherit this land. In response, Abraham built an altar to sacrifice unto the Lord to show his gratitude -- as Noah did after he left the ark. A famine in Canaan caused Abraham to leave that land and to travel to Egypt. From there he returned to Canaan -- to the place where he had previously built the altar. He dwelt there as a stranger, however, not having one square foot as his own property. As a result of the multiplication of their cattle, Abraham and Lot could no longer dwell together. Abraham gave Lot the choice as to where he wished to settle, and Lot chose the region of Sodom and Gomorrah. After having lived there for a period of time, the region was conquered by Chedorlaomer, who led away captive both man and beast. Lot was among the captives. Having been notified thereof, Abraham gathered an army of three hundred eighteen men, born in his house, and defeated Chedorlaomer, and rescued his nephew Lot. Lot remained in this region until the time that those cities and the surrounding region were overthrown, at which time the Lord rescued him by means of angels. After he had left the city together with his wife and two daughters, his wife, contrary to God’s command, looked back at Sodom. Immediately God punished her by changing her into a pillar of salt -- a pillar as hard and impossible to melt as a stone. The daughters of Lot afterward committed their shameful deed that resulted in the emergence of two evil nations which became the mortal enemies of the children of Israel.
Upon Abraham’s return from his victorious battle, he met Melchizedek, king of Salem, who supplied refreshments for him. The identity of this Melchizedek, and whom he typified, has been dealt with in volume one, chapter 20. Thereafter the Lord again appeared to Abraham, renewed the previous promise of the Messiah to come and the multiplication of his seed, and in an extraordinary manner confirmed the covenant of grace with him. At that time God revealed to him that his descendants would be oppressed in a strange land for four hundred years, after which they would return to Canaan to possess it as their inheritance.
Since Abraham probably did not know that the Messiah and the multiplication of his seed would proceed from Sarah, he, upon Sarah’s advice, lay with her maid Hagar, and begot Ishmael by her. By renewal God appeared to Abraham, repeated the same promise, and added to it that this promise would be fulfilled by means of a son whom he would beget from his wife Sarah, commanding Abraham to call him Isaac. God also renamed Abram and Sarai: Instead of Abram, God called him Abraham, and instead of Sarai, God called her Sarah. In renewing His promise, God confirmed the covenant by way of the sacrament of circumcision. He commanded Abraham to circumcise all the males among his descendants at the eighth day -- the command being accompanied by the threat that whoever would not be circumcised would be cut off from his people and be recognized as neither a descendant of Abraham nor a member of the covenant.
Circumcision: (1) was a seal of the covenant of grace, sealing to believers the forgiveness through the Messiah who was to come. “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith” (Romans 4:11).
(2) pointed out the uncleanness of nature unto humiliation. This uncleanness, being expressed by the foreskin of the heart, displeased the Lord, and thus He wanted it removed. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked” (Deuteronomy 10:16); “... all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:26).
(3) placed the children of Israel under obligation, and sealed to them their sanctification. “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 4:4); “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11).
(4) was a very evident mark of distinction for both the Israelites and strangers alike, as it indicated that they were in a covenant relationship with the Lord, and as the seed of Abraham belonged to the church.
True to the promise and the covenant which had been sealed, Sarah became pregnant and begat Isaac at the age of ninety -- contrary to the course of nature. Abraham was one hundred years of age when, to his great joy, Isaac was born to him. It was, however, also a great trial, for God commanded him to sacrifice this precious son upon Mount Moriah. Abraham obeyed God in a matter of the very greatest import. One can imagine, however, that he did so with great pain in his heart. Even if he were to kill his son, he nevertheless believed that the Messiah would come forth from this son -- even if God would have to resurrect him from ashes. However, God prevented him from doing so by providing him a ram which, in close proximity, was caught with his horns in the thicket and was sacrificed in his son’s stead. Thereupon God renewed his previous blessings, pertaining to both the Messiah and the multiplication of his seed through Isaac; for Ishmael had already been sent away at the request of Sarah and upon God’s command. At the occasion of Sarah’s death, Abraham purchased the field of Ephron where the cave of Machpelah was located. There he buried Sarah, and later he was buried there himself, along with Isaac and Jacob. In principle the promise of Canaan -- Canaan being a land in which he, prior to this, did not own as much as one square foot -- was here fulfilled for Abraham. Jacob likewise purchased a parcel of land; this portion was so precious to him, that upon this parcel having been forcefully taken from him, he regained it with his sword, and preserved it as a precious earnest which he bequeathed to Joseph.
Isaac, upon the direction of his father Abraham, and due to the faithfulness of Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, obtained Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel and the sister of Laban, as his wife. She was barren, but the Lord heard Isaac’s prayer and Rebekah conceived and gave birth to Esau and Jacob after God had made known to her that the older would serve the younger. God renewed the covenant and the former promise to Isaac, who also built an altar unto the Lord and called upon His name. A profane Esau sold his birthright to Jacob. Isaac, being old and blind, believed himself to be blessing his son Esau, but unknowingly, due to the quick maneuvering of Rebekah, he blessed Jacob and gave him the rights pertaining to the firstborn.
Upon the advice of Rebekah, Isaac sent Jacob to Mesopotamia. God revealed Himself to Jacob in an extraordinary manner, promising him glorious blessings: the inheritance of Canaan and the multiplication of his seed. Upon arriving in Mesopotamia, Jacob, via a special direction of divine providence, became acquainted with Rachel and through her with her father Laban. He promised his daughter to Jacob as a reward for seven years of service. Laban deceived him, however, and secretly put Leah into Jacob’s bed. Consequently, Jacob had to serve an additional seven years for Rachel. Thus, without this having been his objective, Jacob acquired two wives. From these wives and their maids Jacob fathered twelve sons and traveled with them to Canaan. Along the way he wrestled with the Lord, who changed his name to Israel, and blessed him greatly. Jacob cleansed his family of idols, built an altar unto the Lord, and served him uprightly.
Due to the envy of his brothers, Joseph was sold as a slave to some merchants, who brought him into Egypt where he was sold. After many vicissitudes, Joseph was highly exalted by Pharaoh, who enabled him to bring his father, together with his entire house, into Egypt, thereby preserving them during the seven-year famine. At first, Israel was treated in a friendly manner, but afterward the Egyptians greatly oppressed Israel, making the people their slaves in accordance with God’s prophecy to Abraham. What could be said about types during this period has been expressed in the previous chapter. When the oppression reached its zenith and all means were employed to eradicate Israel completely by killing all newborn male children, the Lord came to their rescue and delivered Israel from the hand of Pharaoh, led them into the land of Canaan, and fulfilled His oft-repeated promise.
After having been preserved for some time, Moses was put into an ark of bulrushes by his parents, who no longer dared to hide him. They placed him among the flags by the river’s brink where Pharaoh’s daughter and her companions found him and picked him up. On the recommendation of Moses’ sister, Pharaoh’s daughter committed him to his own parents for the purpose of raising him, and later adopted him as her son. God called and sent him to deliver Israel. Moses began by punishing an Egyptian; but Israel did not recognize him as their deliverer. He fled and married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro who was a priest or ruler in Midian. While watching the sheep of His fatherin-law at Mount Horeb, the Lord appeared to him in a bush which burned, but was nevertheless not consumed. God sent him forth to deliver Israel, but he sought to be released from that task. God strengthened him by way of signs, however, and permitted his eloquent brother Aaron to accompany him. Upon this, Moses departed and requested of Pharaoh to let Israel go. In response to his repeated refusals, Pharaoh was afflicted with no less than ten plagues, after which he at last allowed Israel to leave. The people of God were also made willing to go. God gave Israel the treasures of Egypt for their heavy labor. Therefore they demanded silver and gold from them, and the Egyptians gave willingly in order to be rid of the people of Israel. The last plague consisted in the death of all the firstborn of the Egyptians. In order to exempt the people of God from this plague, God commanded them to kill a lamb -- a one-year-old male without blemish -- in their homes during the preceding evening. They then had to apply the blood to both of the side-posts and the lintel of their doors. Furthermore, they were commanded to roast the entire lamb in the fire, without breaking any bones, and to eat it with bitter herbs during the night, having their loins girded, shoes on their feet, and their staffs in their hands -- and thus be ready to journey. They had to eat this lamb in its entirety, doing so with haste. God promised that the angel who would slay all the firstborn of Egypt would pass over all the houses where the blood of the lamb had been applied to the doors, and thus would not slay the firstborn -- which indeed did occur that very night. Upon this, Pharaoh commanded Moses and Aaron to depart -- yes, the people strongly urged them to depart and Israel did so that very same night in a hasty yet orderly manner, each squadron being five by five. The Lord decreed that this slaying of the lamb -- the blood of which was applied to the doorposts to deliver Israel from the slaying angel -- was to be observed annually during the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month. He called it the Passover, which means to pass by. And since the blood of the lamb was the means, the lamb itself was called the Passover. “... and kill the passover” (Exodus 12:21); “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed” (Luke 22:7). The following particulars are to be observed:
(1) God changed the months; God designated the seventh month to be the first month. Upon the tenth day of the month Abib the Israelites were to take a lamb from the flock, and set it apart in isolation until the fourteenth day. On that day the Israelites were to kill it toward the evening (Exodus 13:6).
(2) The lamb, be it of a sheep or a goat, was to be a one-year-old male without blemish (Exodus 12:5).
(3) The people were to kill it in their homes until the time that God chose a location for the ministry of types. From that time it was no longer to be killed in the homes, but only in the temple Deuteronomy 16:5-6 where the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar 2 Chronicles 35:11, for the Passover was a sacrifice -- being interchangeably called the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover (Exodus 12:27); 2 Chronicles 35:7-9, or sacrifice Numbers 9:7
(4) The lamb was neither permitted to be boiled nor to be eaten raw. Instead, it was to be roasted in the fire as one entire piece, without breaking its bones (Exodus 12:9).
(5) Having been roasted, it was to be eaten, along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exodus 12:8).
(6) The lamb had to be eaten in its entirety; nothing was permitted to remain. Therefore, if a family was too small, as many families as necessary would have to assemble in order that everything could be consumed; or else the leftovers had to be burned by fire (Exodus 12:10).
(7) Neither strangers, the uncircumcised, nor the unclean were permitted to eat; only the circumcised and the clean were permitted to do so -- men, women, as well as children (Exodus 12:45-47). If anyone was prevented from doing so due to extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances (or whatever else the reason may have been), he would have to observe it on the fourteenth day of the following month (Numbers 9:11).
(8) They had to eat the Passover being prepared to journey, having shoes on their feet, staffs in their hands, their loins girded (since they wore long garments in those lands), and in haste. No one was permitted to leave the house (Exodus 12:11-12). It is credible, however, that some of these particulars only pertained to the first Passover -- Israel having to depart from Egypt immediately upon the eating of the Passover. The Passover, given by God to Israel as an institution, being a sacrifice, belonged to the law of shadows, also called the ceremonial law. It was a type of Christ, as are all sacrifices. Christ is called “our passover [even Christ] is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7); “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Peter says that we are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). Christ was the Son of man; He was a Man of sorrows who was without blemish, was holy, and was killed in the full strength of His life. Not one of His bones was broken, and by His shed and sprinkled blood He delivers all His own from all plagues, and they receive eternal salvation.
After having eaten the Passover, Israel departed Egypt in haste as if they were fleeing. Yet they departed in an orderly fashion by groups of five. They deviated, however, from the normal route leading out of Egypt. When this came to Pharaoh’s knowledge, he reversed his decision to let them go, quickly gathered an army, and pursued them as if they were a flock of helpless sheep. Israel came into great distress. Before them was the sea, at their sides were either the mountains or a way which was not passable, and behind them was Pharaoh who pursued them with his armed forces. Escape was impossible. Moses called upon God who responded by dividing the sea so that the waters stood as walls on both sides, and Israel traveled on dry ground across the bottom of the sea to the other side. As Pharaoh pursued them, the waters converged upon Pharaoh and his army and drowned every one of them. This crossing of the sea was a sacrament to them, sealing redemption in Christ to the believer (1 Corinthians 10:2). Israel, being joyful, praised the Lord and continued their journey. However, the least mishap caused them to distrust the Lord and to murmur. Nevertheless, the Lord helped them. When they were without bread, God caused manna to rain from heaven every night. When they were without water, God cleaved a rock, making water to come forth as a river, which followed them as a flood. They arrived at Mount Horeb, where God had determined that they should worship Him in a solemn manner. This manna and this rock were the sacraments for their spiritual life and of their redemption in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:3-4). Here they entered into a covenant with God; here God gave them the rule of life, the ten commandments; here the tabernacle was constructed at God’s command; and here the ceremonial worship was prescribed to them in an orderly fashion. These matters need to be discussed in more detail.
After Israel had arrived at Horeb, Moses ascended the mountain. God commanded Moses to ask the people on His behalf if they wished to remain in the covenant and be obedient to Him (Exodus 19:8). Moses relayed the message, and the people responded at once: “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exodus 19:8). Thus, we truly have a covenant transaction here: God proposed the covenant and added a promise, upon which the people accepted it. The Covenant Made at Horeb: The Confirmation of the Covenant of Grace This raises the following question: Is the covenant made at Horeb the covenant of grace itself, or is it a national, external, and typical covenant, having as its only promise the inheritance of Canaan -- and is thus the point at which the Old Testament commences?
We answer as follows: (1) It is the covenant of grace itself. This transaction is but a solemn renewal of that covenant of which all believers since Adam have been partakers. God renewed this covenant with Abraham and his seed, confirming it with the sacrament of circumcision.
(2) The sound of the term national covenant is such, that it sometimes causes confusion for those who are not well-informed. It is, however, the covenant of grace which had previously been established with believers, but since the time of Abraham had been restricted to the posterity of Abraham. Only in that respect, and in none other, may it be referred to as a national covenant. The word “national” is not to be found in the Bible.
(3) An external covenant, consisting in temporal promises contingent upon external obedience, had never been established. There can be no such covenant between God and man. We have dealt with this extensively in volume one (chapter 16, pp. 457-463).
(4) The covenant of grace is a typical covenant, and therefore can be referred to as such, since it was administered by types which pointed to Christ. The administration of the covenant is therefore occasionally denominated as the covenant (Genesis 17:3; Jeremiah 31:31). In designating this covenant as a typical covenant, one is not to imply that it did not have an inherent spiritual promise; that is, that the covenant was only typical of spiritual benefits -- particularly those of the New Testament. There is not one trace of evidence in God’s Word that this is so. Such a notion is thus to be rejected as quickly as it is stated.
(5) The Old Testament is the very embodiment of the covenant of grace, administered in the old fashion by way of shadows -- and nothing other than that. If the Old Testament were other than the covenant of grace, the death of a testator other than Jesus Christ would be necessary, for no testament is confirmed except in the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16-17). Furthermore, the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, having been in existence since the time of Adam, nor consisted in the inheritance of Canaan, as we have shown in detail in the previous chapter.
We have stated all this by way of general introduction. Since the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, but rather with Adam and neither consists in the inheritance of Canaan nor is an external covenant, it remains that the covenant made at Horeb is the covenant of grace itself. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, the covenant made at Horeb is not a new covenant, but a renewal of a covenant previously established. This is evident from Exodus 19:1-25 and from all God’s dealings with Israel during their stay at Horeb. Nothing is stated there which even resembles the establishment of a new covenant -- a covenant which previously had not existed. Rather, the covenant dealt with is consistently the covenant which existed previously. Observe this at the beginning of the chapter: “Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exodus 19:5-6
Secondly, the covenant established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the covenant of grace. The covenant at Horeb was, however, the same covenant as was established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the covenant established at Horeb is the covenant of grace.
It is evident that the covenant with Abraham is the covenant of grace for the following reasons:
(1) It had Christ as its Mediator (Genesis 12:2-3; Galatians 3:17).
(2) It had God as a God who was a shield and a great reward (Genesis 15:1; Genesis 17:8).
(3) By it Abraham was established as the father of all believers (Genesis 17:2
(4) It had to be embraced by faith (Genesis 25:6; Genesis 17:3; Romans 4:18-20).
(5) It had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11). That the covenant made at Horeb was the same covenant made with Abraham is first of all evident from the fact that it contained the same promises, had the same rule of life, and had the same manner of worship.
(1) It contained the same spiritual and temporal promises. The spiritual promise was that God would be their God, and that they would belong to God. “I am the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:2); “And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God” (Exodus 29:45); “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people” (Exodus 19:6). That this is the essence of the covenant of grace is evident from 2 Corinthians 6:16 : “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Furthermore, they were a royal priesthood and a holy nation: “And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:6); “But ye are ... a royal priesthood, an holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). The temporal promises were also the same -- as for instance, the promise of Canaan. God gave this land to Abraham. “And I will give unto thee ... the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8); “The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it” (Genesis 28:13). Thus, Canaan belonged to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob successively, and their descendants inherited it as an inheritance received from their father. The possessions of the parents are for the children.
(2) It had the same rule of life -- the will of God to love the Lord, and to fear, believe, and trust Him. All this is comprehended in the command: “Walk before Me, and be thou perfect” (Genesis 17:1). At Mount Horeb, God gave the identical command to Israel by way of the law of the ten commandments annunciated there.
(3) There was the same manner of worship -- by way of shadows. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made altars of earth, and also offered sacrifices as Cain, Abel, and Noah did before them. They had mishmor, mitsvah, chakkah, and thorah. These are words which are generally expressive of laws -- both moral and ceremonial.
“Because that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). They had circumcision as a sacrament of the covenant. Israel had the same ordinance -- the same sacrament. Since everything was identical, Israel had the same covenant which was established with Abraham.
Secondly, it is evident that the covenant established with Israel was identical to the covenant God established with Abraham from the fact that when mention is made of the covenant with Israel, reference is continually made to the covenant with Abraham, the declaration being that they are one and the same. “Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers” (Deuteronomy 7:11-12); “Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them. ... Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God. ... That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into His oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: that He may establish thee to day for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” Deuteronomy 29:9-10
Thus, the covenant which God established with Israel, along with the promises and the benefits, is the same; it is none other than the covenant God made with Abraham -- and is thus the covenant of grace itself.
Evasive Argument: In these texts it is indeed stated that God swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that the covenant He made with Israel at Horeb would be established with their seed; but not that it is the same covenant.
Answer (1) This is merely conjecture and its conclusion can be answered with a denial.
(2) It expressly contradicts those texts which declare that God has established this covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that God would confirm that identical covenant with Israel, their seed.
(3) It contradicts Genesis 17:7 where the Lord enters into covenant with Abraham, and in him with his seed -- it being declared to be one and the same covenant. Furthermore, regarding Canaan, it was given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it was their land. “And I will give unto thee ... all the land of Canaan” (Genesis 17:8); “The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it” (Genesis 28:13). Israel received it from their father as an inheritance. Abraham had the property rights, and Israel, by reason of those rights, came into its possession in accordance with the Lord’s promise made to Abraham that He would do so.
Thirdly, not one person who is of Reformed persuasion will deny (no one can deny it!) that the covenant which has Christ as its Surety and Mediator is the covenant of grace. Such is true, however, for the covenant of Horeb, for it does have Christ as its Mediator, which is evident from the fact that it was ratified with blood. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you” (Exodus 24:8); “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people” (Hebrews 9:18-19).
God had given the blood to make atonement for man. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The blood of animals was not capable of reconciling man with God. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). This efficacy is, however, to be found in the blood of the Lord Jesus: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood” (Romans 3:25); “In whom we have redemption through His blood” (Ephesians 1:7). The blood of animals sacrificed in the Old Testament was a type of the blood of Christ -- just as the entire law of shadows pointed to future benefits and was not the essence of the matter itself (Hebrews 10:1). This is particularly to be observed in Hebrews 9:1-28 where the apostle continually compares the blood of bullocks and goats with the blood of the Lord Jesus, that is, the type with the antitype (vss. 12-14,20,25). Speaking of this in verse 23, he says, “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:23). Therefore, just as Moses sprinkled the book and the people, the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling (Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2). It is thus both certain and obvious that the sprinkling of the book of the covenant and of the people pointed to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (that is, the appropriation and application thereof), confirming the covenant of grace. Thus, the covenant of Sinai had Christ as its Mediator, and consequently was the covenant of grace.
Fourthly, that covenant is the covenant of grace itself which has as its sacraments the sacraments of grace. A seal confirms a covenant -- and then only that covenant of which it is a seal. To sever a seal from one covenant and to attach it to another covenant of an entirely different content is the height of infidelity. However, the covenant of Sinai has as its seals the seals of the covenant of grace. It was confirmed by circumcision and the Passover, both of which the children of Israel were commanded to strictly observe upon the threat of excommunication; that is, expulsion from the congregation of God and the covenant. It has been confirmed in the previous chapter that circumcision and the Passover were the seals of the covenant of grace. Both were instituted prior to the covenant at Horeb. The disputants admit that nothing but the covenant of grace existed previously. Both sealed the covenant of grace: Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith Romans 4:11, and the Passover was Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Along with the three previous proofs, this proves that the covenant of Horeb was the covenant of grace.
Refutation of Objections to the Covenant at Horeb being the Covenant of Grace
Objection #1: The Word of God continually makes a distinction between the covenant at Horeb and the covenant of grace. Thus, the covenant at Horeb is not the covenant of grace, but an external covenant, consisting in the promise of Canaan as typifying heavenly benefits. This is evident from Deuteronomy 5:3 : “The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” Here the fathers, who were not present at Horeb, are contrasted with those who were. It is expressly stated here that the covenant made at Horeb was not made with the fathers. Thus, the covenant at Horeb is a different covenant from the covenant of grace in which the fathers were comprehended, and which remains the same from Adam until the end of the world.
Answer (1) The contrast is not with the fathers prior to the exodus, but with those who had been present at Horeb and who, according to God’s threat, had died in the wilderness; and with those who presently were alive, were in the fields of Moab, and forty years later stood ready to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan. At that time God solemnly renewed the covenant; therefore the objection is null and void.
(2) This covenant made in Moab was the same in essence, but different in regard to time, persons, and manner. In this context it is said that God did not make that covenant with their forefathers who died in the wilderness -- just like Scripture frequently speaks of or denies a matter which did not exist under given circumstances. (Cf. John 7:39; Romans 16:25-26; Ephesians 3:5; Appendix, chapter 1, p. ###373).
(3) If one wishes to interpret the fathers as referring to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. the contrast also does not pertain to the essence of the covenant, but is relative to the circumstances, for it was one in essence, as has been shown in the confirmation: “The Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers” (Deuteronomy 7:12). However, here the reference is not to fathers but to Horeb.
Objection #2: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts” (Jeremiah 31:31-33). Here there is an obvious contrast between the covenant at Horeb and the new covenant in the days of the New Testament -- not in regard to circumstances, but the essence itself. In the New Testament God would write the laws in their heart and He, as is promised in verses 33-34, would forgive their unrighteousness and remember their sins no more. The text in question does not connect any of this to the covenant at Horeb. Thus, the covenant at Horeb is not the covenant of grace, but an external, typical covenant, the promise of which only pertained to the inheritance of Canaan.
Answer: It is a fact that there is a distinction here between the Old and New Testaments. It is equally certain that the New Testament did not exist during the days of the Old Testament, but came after the Old Testament; that is, it replaced and set aside the Old Testament. Furthermore, it is true that the New Testament is the covenant of grace, comprehending the spiritual benefits in Christ -- and to remain with the text: the writing of the law in their hearts, to have God as their God (vs. 33), to have enlightened eyes of the understanding, and to have the forgiveness of sins (vs. 34). Moreover, it is equally certain that the Old Testament comprehended all these benefits of the covenant of grace and the covenant of grace itself. This we shall show in the following chapters.
It is also agreed that the covenant of grace has been since Adam and will remain the same in essence until the end of the world -- as in our opinion it has been irrefutably proven in the previous chapter that the Old Testament began with the very first promise in Paradise. Consequently, it follows with equal certainty that the contrast between the Old and New Testaments cannot be one of essence. Since the New Testament is the covenant of grace -- the New Testament having been nonexistent during the Old Testament, existing subsequent to, instead of, and the setting aside of the Old Testament being implied -- then all who lived prior to the time of the New Testament would not have had a covenant of grace. There would then have been no fear of God, no knowledge of the mystery of salvation, and no forgiveness of sins; whereas people were indeed saved and did possess all the benefits of the covenant of grace.
Therefore, the contrast pertains to the circumstances, the manner of administration, and the measure of light, faith, hope, and love. Old Testament believers had the law written in their hearts, had God as their God, had the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, and had the forgiveness of sins. They did not have this, however, with the same clarity as New Testament believers. The Old Testament is the covenant of grace, administered by shadows and examples. The New Testament is also the covenant of grace -- but administered without shadows. The one testament is called “old” because of its previous and original existence; and it has become old and has vanished. The other testament is called “new” because it chronologically followed the old, and it was also administered differently from the old. Scripture calls something new which, though it existed previously, is renewed. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another” (John 13:34).
Additional Objection: Man cannot annul the covenant of grace. However, the Jews did set the Old Testament aside (vs. 32). Thus, the Old Testament is not the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) He who has truly entered into the covenant of grace will by reason of the immutability of God and the influence of preserving grace not break it. This is according to the promise found in (Jeremiah 32:40). The unconverted Jews, however, made a covenant of works of the old covenant. They desired to be justified by observing the ceremonial service, and believed that the blood of animals removed their sins. Thus, they broke the old covenant, changing and distorting its administration and objective in such a manner as to make it differ completely from the purpose for which the ceremonial service was instituted.
(2) By their ungodly lives the unconverted Jews showed that they had never entered rightly into the covenant of grace, but had only entered in externally and thus were no partakers of the benefits of the covenant. Thus, this breach of covenant relates to them and their activities.
(3) If the Old Testament consisted in the promise of Canaan, and if they had rendered that null and void, the unconverted Jews would have rescinded the inheritance of Canaan; it would no longer be their inheritance. To this, however, they will not admit.
Objection #3: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Here we have an express contrast between Moses and Christ -- between law, and truth and grace. Moses was the mediator of the Old Testament, and Christ of the New Testament. The law, the Old Testament, did not provide grace. It only had the promise of the land of Canaan. In the New Testament, however, there is truth and grace. The covenant at Horeb was thus not the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) For the sake of the honor of Christ, I vehemently deny that Moses was a mediator of the Old Testament. To maintain this is very detrimental to the mediatorial office of Christ. Christ was the Mediator -- and the only Mediator -- of the Old as well as the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today (Hebrews 13:8). Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).
(2) Moses is only called mediator in Galatians 3:19 in consequence of his transmitting of the law as a messenger -- the law which had been placed in his hands by angels. However, he is never called the mediator of the Old Testament and was never a mediator in Canaan, for he had already expired prior to Israel’s arrival in Canaan. Or was he a mediator in heaven? Moses was no more a mediator of the children of Israel than he is for us at the present time. We have the law, transmitted by Moses, as much as they had it.
(3) The contrast on which this text focuses is between law, grace, and truth, and conveys that the law (interpret this as broadly as you wish) could not grant salvation. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20); “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices ... make the comers thereunto perfect” (Hebrews 10:1). All the shadows, when divorced from their substance, are of no value; they were not instituted as such. Their design was to lead to Christ, in order to believe in Him. Christ is the true image and embodiment of the shadows. By virtue of His satisfaction, believers both of the Old and New Testaments obtain grace. That is the contrast expressed in this text. What then is left in this text of an external covenant? What basis is there for asserting that the covenant at Horeb is not the covenant of grace itself?
Objection #4: Consider 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. In this chapter there is a contrast between the Old and New Testaments. The apostle calls the Old Testament the letter that kills (vs. 6), “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” (vs. 7), and “the ministration of condemnation” (vs. 9); whereas the New Testament is called “the ministration of the spirit” (vs. 8), and “the ministration of righteousness” (vs. 9). It is thus very evident that the Old Testament was not the covenant of grace.
Answer (1) It can be seen very clearly that the reference here is to the law of the ten commandments, which alone was written upon and engraven in tables of stone. This was not the case with the ceremonial laws. And since the disputants postulate the ten commandments to be a declaration of the covenant of grace, how can they avoid contradicting themselves? Is the compendium of the covenant of grace a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation? They will therefore have to answer me concerning their own objections.
(2) If the Old Testament were a ministry of condemnation, it would be without promise; and it would also not have Canaan as its inheritance. It would then be a covenant of condemnation. Who would ever be willing and delighted to enter into a covenant of condemnation? Old Testament believers would then have been partakers of a covenant of condemnation. If they had been partakers of a covenant of condemnation, not one believer from the time of Moses would have been saved, but all would have been condemned. And thus by using this text, one contradicts himself, the Scriptures, and the children of God.
(3) The text neither distinguishes nor contrasts the Old and New Testaments. Rather, it does so relative to both the moral and ceremonial laws (let us consider it in such broad terms) and their administration as such, that is, divorced from Christ. This is how the Jews viewed and used the ceremonial law. This is to be observed throughout the entire letters to the Galatians and the Hebrews, as well as in what Paul expresses in Romans 9:31-32 : “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” And thus he declares that the administration of the law, when divorced from Christ, is but a dead letter -- a ministry of death and condemnation. For no one could be justified in that manner; but all who adhere to this external structure, divorced from and without Christ, could only be condemned. Apart from Christ there is no salvation, “for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse” (Galatians 3:10). He contrasts this with Christ and the proclamation of Him, calling that the ministration of the Spirit and a ministration of righteousness. For all believers are called to Christ by the gospel which was present in both the Old and New Testaments -- and who, believing in Christ, are justified. Therefore, there is nothing here which could either be supportive of an external covenant, or disprove that the Old Testament is the covenant of grace.
Objection #5: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:23-26). Here the Old and New Testaments are contrasted with each other. The Old Testament, depicted by Hagar and her son Ishmael, was established at Sinai. It commenced at that time as a carnal and external covenant (having Canaan as its inheritance and having no true and spiritual benefits), imposing hard bondage by way of the ceremonies. In contrast, the New Testament, depicted by Sarah and Isaac, is a spiritual covenant, sets at liberty, and grants spiritual and eternal benefits. Thus, the covenant at Sinai is not the covenant of grace.
Answer: To respond to this objection, we shall first exegete the text, and then counter the objection extracted from this text. The history at hand pertains to Abraham, who laid with Hagar upon Sarah’s request and fathered Ishmael, who according to the flesh was from Abraham. Subsequently, Abraham received a specific promise that he would receive a son by his wife Sarah, whom he would call Isaac, and that from Isaac would proceed the multiplication of his seed and the Messiah. Isaac having been born, Ishmael hates, mocks, and persecutes him to the utmost of his ability (vs. 29). Verse 30 states that Ishmael, together with his mother Hagar, was cast out without inheritance. However, godly Isaac remained at home and became the heir of everything. The apostle does not refer to these matters as examples, for they were not such in the true sense of the word. They were neither incorporated as part of the body of worship, nor did they belong to the ceremonial law, as then there would also be examples of examples -- and they in turn of others. Hagar would have been an example of the Old Testament, and that in turn of Jerusalem (vs. 25). Rather, he calls them allegoroumena -- matters which by reason of similarity to and agreement with certain matters can be applied to other matters and meanings. (See previous chapter.)
He calls Hagar and Sarah two covenants. God, in Adam, had established the covenant of works with the human race, the demands of which are repeated in the law of the ten commandments. This covenant having been rendered ineffectual due to sin, God reestablished it as the covenant of grace, which in essence is the same and will abide from Adam until the end of the world. However, since the Surety of that covenant did not come at the very outset, but about four thousand years after the initial establishment of the covenant, it was necessary, and it pleased God in His wisdom and goodness, to administer that covenant of grace by way of examples and shadows of the promised Surety until the advent of Christ, the Surety. Subsequent to His coming, however, there was no longer any need or purpose for them; Christ now administers the covenant without them. The distinction made between the old and the new covenant relates to the administration thereof, they being one in essence. Its denomination as either old or new does not relate to the essence of the covenant, but to its administration, as is evident from what follows:
(1) The old covenant is no external covenant which promised external benefits upon external obedience, did not commence at Sinai, and does not consist in the inheritance of Canaan; rather, it is the covenant of grace itself -- all of which has been shown in the previous chapter. Consequently, it is called “old” relative to its administration.
(2) The new covenant is not called “new” relative to its essence, for it is the covenant of grace itself which has been operative since Adam. Rather, it is called new relative to its administration. The new covenant or testament has come subsequent to the old, has taken its place by annulling the former, and was not new as long as the old covenant was operative. The New Testament did not exist in the days of the Old Testament, whereas the covenant of grace did. Consequently, the covenant of grace is called the new covenant or testament only relative to its administration. In this text the apostle speaks of the covenant of grace in its twofold administration, calling it two covenants. The apostle calls the one the covenant of Sinai. This does not imply that the covenant of grace commenced at that time (see previous chapter), but that it was at that time solemnly inaugurated, and attained its greatest glory and luster. This engendered bondage or servitude -- just as Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. Servitude can be either good or bad. Good servitude consists in serving God in spirit and in truth, and according to His will. The godly are therefore often called the servants of God, as well as servants of righteousness (Romans 6:19). They yield their “members servants to righteousness unto holiness” (vs. 19) and are “servants of God” (vs. 22). In that light Paul says of himself in 1 Corinthians 9:27, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.” It is such service God had in view by giving the ceremonies. They were given to that end as the contents of the old covenant. There is also an evil servitude when one serves sin and is in bondage to sin. “... as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity” (Romans 6:19). This also applies when one wishes to serve God in a manner contrary to what He has commanded: “Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship” (Colossians 2:23). The covenant of Sinai which engenders bondage brought forth illegitimate children, just as Ishmael was illegitimate. This was not a consequence of the nature of this covenant, for it was an administration instituted by God for the purpose of worship. It was pleasing to Him, and therefore the godly found great delight in it, praising and thanking the Lord for it. Rather, it was through human perversion that this evangelical manner of worship -- which the old administration was -- was changed into a covenant of works. Thus, the antitype, Christ, was separated from the types, thereby removing the very soul from them. They adhered to the external deeds of the law and sought their righteousness therein. This Sinai was synonymous to “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Galatians 4:29). This was the nature of the condition of Jerusalem in the days when Paul wrote this. There was no adherence to the covenant of Sinai which had been broken, as the Lord testified in (Jeremiah 31:32). It had been changed into a covenant other than what the Lord had given -- into a covenant of works -- and they sought their righteousness therein. “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3); “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4). Since they were mired in the external things, they were not serving God, for He had not given these ceremonies for that purpose. Their servitude toward the ceremonies was an evil servitude. God had not imposed this servitude upon them in this covenant. The apostle issues a warning against this, saying: “Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1); “How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” Galatians 4:29 All who had brought themselves therefore in a bondage of this nature were in a condition just like unto Ishmael, who was a son of a bondwoman, and by virtue of that relationship, he himself was in bondage. They did indeed issue forth from Abraham according to the flesh, but they were not the children of promise. They had no spiritual graces and no spiritual inheritance. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:6-8). Just as Ishmael was a reviler and persecutor of Isaac, likewise the Jews under bondage were revilers and persecutors of those gracious souls who had been born after the Spirit (Galatians 4:29). Just as Ishmael had been expelled, God had likewise rejected them -- their destruction with that of Jerusalem already being imminent. Thus Hagar and her son Ishmael represent all who are in the covenant only in an external sense. This is what is meant by Hagar, Sinai, and Jerusalem. The covenant contrasted with the covenant of Sinai (which, as stated above, in this context is represented by Sarah) is the new covenant. In its essence it already existed in the Old Testament; all the godly were partakers of it, and by it they obtained redemption and the eternal inheritance. Relative to its administration, however, it is a new covenant which had its beginning with the suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. As far as essence was concerned, this covenant was one and the same as the old covenant. It is a gracious covenant, pertains to heavenly benefits and a heavenly inheritance, and begets free and heavenly children. “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:27). This covenant, administered in the new manner, would be very fruitful in bringing forth free and spiritual children. “Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband” (Galatians 4:27). This is Sarah and the Jerusalem which is from above. Paul’s objective in presenting these matters was to draw the Jews away from their errors, and to prevent believing Jews from succumbing to them. The latter continually wanted to return to the ceremonies -- not to use them again as types, for they believed that the Messiah, Christ, had already come, but to use those things and activities for worship, and thereby to seek their righteousness.
Now we shall proceed with the rebuttal of the objection extracted from this text: The covenant made at Sinai is not the covenant of grace. The entire thrust of this argument is derived from 1) the covenant at Sinai being depicted by Hagar and Ishmael, 2) it being said to be a covenant of bondage, and 3) this covenant being contrasted with the New Testament, depicted by Sarah and Isaac and consisting in heavenly benefits.
Answer (1) Not one word is mentioned here of Canaan being the inheritance in which they who object insist the Old Testament consists. It also does not concur with it being typified by Hagar and Ishmael, who were sent away without an inheritance.
(2) Also here it is not stated that the Old Testament had its beginning at Sinai. Sinai is mentioned since the Old Testament was solemnly inaugurated and adorned with all its luster and glory at that occasion -- a covenant, as has been shown in the previous chapter, which already existed since the time of Adam. It is likewise stated that circumcision was given by Moses, even though it had been given to Abraham long before that.
(3) Paul, who compares the Old Testament with Hagar, does this not as it had been instituted of old, but as it had been perverted into a covenant of works. So it was in Jerusalem at the time when Paul wrote this -- a city which had completely deviated from the proper institution of the covenant. The objection can therefore not be sustained.
(4) Also the word “bondage” does not contribute at all to the discrediting of our proof. Divine servitude, even though it is grievous for the flesh, is a holy work and has the promise of all spiritual benefits and salvation. It is not expressive at all of an external covenant pertaining to temporal promises only. However, God did not impose the grievousness of this bondage. Rather, this bondage was in consequence of their perversion of the gospel (which is what the ceremonies were), making it a covenant of works in order to be justified by it. This yoke was therefore an unbearable burden.
(5) It cannot be true that Hagar depicts an external covenant, for the godly were also comprehended in the covenant of Sinai, and thus they would simultaneously hail from Hagar and Sarah. They would have been ungodly Ishmaels, mockers, persecutors of those who are after the Spirit, no heirs, and subject to being cast out -- and simultaneously be sons, freemen, and heirs. It is thus evident that this objection is without substance, a fact which becomes all the more clear when one adds to this the exposition of the text as mentioned.
Objection #6: “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament” (Hebrews 7:22); “How much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). The New Testament is a better covenant, having better promises and Jesus as a Surety. Thus, the Old Testament is an external covenant, having temporal promises without having Jesus as a Surety.
Answer (1) One could at best conclude from this objection that the Old Testament was not such a good covenant, and did not have such good promises; but not that the Old Testament was simply an external covenant, having only temporal promises. That which differs in measure does not differ in nature; that which differs as far as circumstances are concerned does not differ in essence. The essence of the covenants is one and the same. As to the covenant of grace itself, the manner of administration differs as far as clarity and scope are concerned. That is the reason why the one is better than the other.
(2) The apostle’s objective here is to show the excellency of Christ, and how in His ministry He is superior to the priests, their work, and the types of the Old Testament. Paul speaks of all this -- as they are in and of themselves, divorced from the antitype Christ. In this manner the Jews of that time viewed the entire ministry of shadows; they embraced it as a covenant of works and sought to be justified thereby. Such were the persons the apostle opposed, showing them that all such service, when divorced from Christ, was neither efficacious nor beneficial. Instead, it was ineffective, useless, and flawed. Over against this the apostle placed the Lord Jesus, who is the antitype of those shadows and the Mediator of the covenant of grace. The objectors place the external administration as such in opposition to the covenant of grace and Christ as its Surety -- just as if one were to divorce the water of baptism and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper from their spiritual meaning, considering these elements just as they are, while contrasting them with the Lord Jesus and His fullness. The covenant of grace is indeed a better covenant than all those external administrations -- better than all those animal sacrifices. Of that better covenant Jesus is Surety and Mediator. That covenant has better promises than its external administration as such and when viewed as divorced from the antitype. To make such a separation is fruitless, for the covenant was not instituted apart from the antitype.
Objection #7: “For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (for they could not endure that which was commanded) ... but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. ... And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” Hebrews 12:18-20
Answer (1) This objection contradicts itself. In verses 18-20 mention is made only of the giving of the ten commandments. The ceremonial laws were not given in that fashion, and furthermore, the opposing parties deemed the law of the ten commandments to be a formula of the covenant of grace. This would then mean that the covenant of grace would have been announced in such a dreadful fashion. How can the disputants then conclude from this frightful event that the covenant established there cannot be the covenant of grace?
(2) There is not even a reference to a covenant here. No name is mentioned, nor is the matter referred to. Thus, one cannot construct an external covenant from this passage.
(3) All that is stated in the text neither refers to the matter nor to the contents of the ten commandments -- which they were also unable to either fulfill or practice. Rather, it refers to the manner in which it was given, which they could not bear. Their prayer was that God would no longer speak to them in that manner, but that God would speak to them instead through Moses.
(4) The fact that the things of the Old Testament are said to be shaken (vs. 27) is not indicative of an external covenant. Rather, the specific manner in which the covenant of grace was administered had to cease, since the substance of that of which the types were a shadow had come. The administration of the New Testament will also cease, but does this therefore mean that it is not the covenant of grace? The change of administration is not indicative of a change of covenant.
Objection #8: That covenant into which an entire nation, head for head, the godly and the ungodly, must enter (and also did enter); the sacraments of which every single individual had to partake of; and which was capable of being broken and annulled, is not the covenant of grace, but is an external covenant. However, the covenant of Sinai was such a covenant. Therefore:
Answer (1) All who are called in both Old and New Testaments are obligated to obey the voice of the gospel and to enter into the covenant.
(2) There is a difference between the act of entering into the covenant, and the covenant itself. The act of entering can be of a deceitful and external nature, but it is therefore not true that the covenant is an external covenant. Those who did not enter in the right manner sinned most dreadfully, for they were all obligated to enter with an upright heart.
(3) Every believer is obliged to use the sacraments and to have their children sealed by the sacrament of incorporation. An ungodly person is also obliged to believe and to use the sacraments while believing. However, an ungodly person who was and continued to be ungodly was no more permitted to eat the Passover and bring sacrifices than they are presently permitted to be baptized and partake of the Lord’s Supper.
(4) A temporal believer can fall away; however, he does not fall out of the covenant of grace, for he was never in it. The actual breaking of the covenant occurred when he entered. There was an external entering into, and thus an external breaking of the covenant, as shown above. When all these things are considered together, it is evident that the first proposition is false -- and thus the entire syllogism is null and void.
Objection #9: The covenant of Sinai was external in every respect. The blood, the commandments, the obedience, the promises, the atonement, the mediator (such as Moses), the sacraments, the sanctuary, and the manner of worship -- all were of an external sort, and therefore it was also an external covenant.
Answer (1) If all these matters existed independently, and neither pointed to nor were united with the antitype; and if God were to have made a covenant with man thereby, we would allow the objection. However, neither the one nor the other is true.
(2) By way of such argumentation, it could also be concluded that the New Testament is an external covenant. There is external water, external bread and wine, external preaching, external confession, external physical activity along with words to glorify God thereby, and external and temporal promises. The covenant is therefore external. This proves the futility of the objection.
(3) All the external matters and forms of worship pertained to the antitype, Christ. Apart from Him they neither had meaning nor were instituted as such. Rather, they were united with the antitype. The manner of worship was therefore spiritual, and both the atonement and the sealing of it were in truth. The promises were not only temporal in nature, but also pertained to all the spiritual benefits of the covenant of grace. As shown earlier, Moses was not the mediator of the covenant, but only the one who transmitted the covenant. God was not satisfied with external worship; He demanded the heart instead. Thus, this objection refutes itself.