The Covenant of Works

[DaveXR650]

Please don't take this wrong as it's also a sensitive subject for me, but at some point (if you have not already) you are going to have to decide whether God's Word is your authority or Presbyterian writers and theology. Either way is fine with me (both contain the gospel). But you cannot follow both.

Jon, I'm not much of a Presbyterian but I reject this argument in this setting when you are following the writings of a few guys who got together to come up with NCT. So much of the confusion on this site comes from people who have determined that no one who ever came before them had the insight they did in actually reading scripture.

Does that mean that we must put to death a man who accidentally runs over and kills another person (as required under the Old Covenant)? I don't believe so because I do not understand that to be showing love to the offender or the family of the victim. But that man did violate one of the Ten Commandments, and under the Law he is required to die or live as a prisoner for the remainder of his life.

Here's a good example. This is not what is meant here. Most primitive cultures lived by the feud. You do something to me and I'll wipe out you and your whole family. The Law came up with the idea of proportional justice, which was one of the greatest moments in human history. We still do it today. If my gun goes off accidently or if a child drowns in my pool I am not now in a blood feud but my life is ruined. The Old Testament even makes a difference between someone coming into your house at night vs the daylight. That's a misrepresentation to suggest that the law stated that society had to kill someone over an accidental death.

insists God's moral law is absolute and applicable.

The whole point they make is that the chief difference in NCT is regarding the law. They believe that the moral law IS ended. Like I said, if they are replacing it with the teachings of Christ and the teachings in the Epistles then that is fine but if they are insisting on it being a matter of your inner light or if it involves everything somehow being found in Christ and put in you in some unexplained way the there might be big problems. Walking by the Spirit does not mean walking by the law, but it also does not mean you have gotten beyond the need to look at specific scriptural principles and apply them to your life using your rational mind (now renewed) and experimentally seeing how this works.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is a reason Puritanism ended in the early 18th Century. Before reading Puritan writings it is probably a good idea to understand Puritan errors. Then go for it, knowing there are obstacles ahead.

There is a lot written on that. What most people did who think highly of Puritans nowadays is that they were evangelical Christians who once they were "once saved and always saved" started getting a feeling that there was some kind of a Christian walk that God might expect. Something you might experience. The modern answers of dig into prophesy or buttonhole every waitress or clerk you meet or run from one revival to another didn't satisfy. At some point they got a hold of a Puritan paperback, usually Pilgrim's Progress and it went from there.

We don't have, and don't pretend to have any connection to the semi-feudal world the Puritans lived under, where church attendance was mandatory and most of the congregation was thus unsaved. We have no concept of the way they were involved in government (they were almost all paid by the government) or the way church and state were intertwined. And personally, I have seen a marked cooling of interest in Puritan writings in just the last 15 years. They are still drug out when making a point but they are indeed considered too fanatical for modern tastes, and way too introspective for modern sensitive people so prone to mental problems. They don't do anything for your self esteem.

 

[JonC]

There is a lot written on that. What most people did who think highly of Puritans nowadays is that they were evangelical Christians who once they were "once saved and always saved" started getting a feeling that there was some kind of a Christian walk that God might expect. Something you might experience. The modern answers of dig into prophesy or buttonhole every waitress or clerk you meet or run from one revival to another didn't satisfy. At some point they got a hold of a Puritan paperback, usually Pilgrim's Progress and it went from there.

We don't have, and don't pretend to have any connection to the semi-feudal world the Puritans lived under, where church attendance was mandatory and most of the congregation was thus unsaved. We have no concept of the way they were involved in government (they were almost all paid by the government) or the way church and state were intertwined. And personally, I have seen a marked cooling of interest in Puritan writings in just the last 15 years. They are still drug out when making a point but they are indeed considered too fanatical for modern tastes, and way too introspective for modern sensitive people so prone to mental problems. They don't do anything for your self esteem.

My main concern is that many Christians looking to defend against shallow doctrine end up moving towards past examples of theology just as shallow but in different ways.

(I don't mean you, but I mean that as a general observation).

The two easiest and most shallow approaches to Scripture I have witnessed are emotional approaches that are focused on internal emotions or feelings and legalistic approaches that are focused on external behavior.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I'm not much of a Presbyterian but I reject this argument in this setting when you are following the writings of a few guys who got together to come up with NCT. So much of the confusion on this site comes from people who have determined that no one who ever came before them had the insight they did in actually reading scripture.


Here's a good example. This is not what is meant here. Most primitive cultures lived by the feud. You do something to me and I'll wipe out you and your whole family. The Law came up with the idea of proportional justice, which was one of the greatest moments in human history. We still do it today. If my gun goes off accidently or if a child drowns in my pool I am not now in a blood feud but my life is ruined. The Old Testament even makes a difference between someone coming into your house at night vs the daylight. That's a misrepresentation to suggest that the law stated that society had to kill someone over an accidental death.


The whole point they make is that the chief difference in NCT is regarding the law. They believe that the moral law IS ended. Like I said, if they are replacing it with the teachings of Christ and the teachings in the Epistles then that is fine but if they are insisting on it being a matter of your inner light or if it involves everything somehow being found in Christ and put in you in some unexplained way the there might be big problems. Walking by the Spirit does not mean walking by the law, but it also does not mean you have gotten beyond the need to look at specific scriptural principles and apply them to your life using your rational mind (now renewed) and experimentally seeing how this works.

I disagree here.

NCT, Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism all look to those who came before (Dispensationalism has the oldest references).

But applied theology is always contemporary or it is obsolete. There is a place for historical theology, but it is not extracting historical ideas and placing them into the modern church. When that is done you end up with a new version of an old system that died out for a reason.

It appears to me that you have not yet understood the point NCT makes when it quotes Scripture by insisting we are no longer under the Law.

You have not come to terms with the fact that NCT holds that God's moral law (not the "so called moral law" of Covenant Theology) is eternal because it is an expression of God's moral nature.

You are arguing by using a type of shell game. The NCT point is that God's moral law is the Law of Christ and that this law ESTABLISHED the Old Covenant Law.

 

[DaveXR650]

It appears to me that you have not yet understood the point NCT makes when it quotes Scripture by insisting we are no longer under the Law.

You have not come to terms with the fact that NCT holds that God's moral law (not the "so called moral law" of Covenant Theology) is eternal because it is an expression of God's moral nature.

You are arguing by using a type of shell game. The NCT point is that God's moral law is the Law of Christ and that this law ESTABLISHED the Old Covenant Law.

I could say NCT is doing the shell game. Dr. Moo says the old covenant and the law is abrogated. That means it's done away with. And then you say God's moral law, not the so called moral law of covenant theology? Honestly, I don't know enough about this to go on. That makes no sense to me. If I could hear some sermons on issues of Christian living or sanctification from a NCT point of view I might be able to figure out what is meant but I really don't know at this point.

I will try to go back and read Dr. Moo's article. It's fairly long. But even with him, what he does is basically go on and on about this theology which is some kind of modified Lutheran view and then in his conclusion he says he would have no trouble with a Reformed colleague who took the approach of going by the Old Testament Law.

 

[JonC]

I could say NCT is doing the shell game. Dr. Moo says the old covenant and the law is abrogated. That means it's done away with. And then you say God's moral law, not the so called moral law of covenant theology? Honestly, I don't know enough about this to go on. That makes no sense to me. If I could hear some sermons on issues of Christian living or sanctification from a NCT point of view I might be able to figure out what is meant but I really don't know at this point.

I will try to go back and read Dr. Moo's article. It's fairly long. But even with him, what he does is basically go on and on about this theology which is some kind of modified Lutheran view and then in his conclusion he says he would have no trouble with a Reformed colleague who took the approach of going by the Old Testament Law.

I like Moo, but Moo does not affirm NCT so I'm not sure that his view applies. He is brought up because aspects of his views coincide with NCT.

John Piper is the same. He says that his view is closest to NCT, but he also says that is not exactly his view

I'm probably the same, too. NCT is the traditional position of Reformed Baptists and I am not a Reformed Baptist (I would certainly not agree with many NCT adherents).

Why do you believe Paul said that we are not under the Law? Do you agree or disagree with his claim?

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe Paul said that we are not under the Law? Do you agree or disagree with his claim?

We are no longer under the law as a means of justification or even of sanctification in the sense that you use obedience to the law as a means to improve your standing before God. So agree with this claim. But Paul also said the law is holy and that we are given the Spirit so that we can obey the law. If you are interested, on the Martin Lloyd-Jones sermon site there are two sermons on the first part of Romans Ch. 7 where he discusses this. Go to the second part and go right to the 42 minute mark. He lays out several verses with references that point out how Jesus and Paul actually quote the 10 commandments themselves in reference to the obedience and pursuit of holiness required of Christians. Dr. Moo even says the same thing - that all the commandments except keeping the sabbath are restated, directly by Jesus and the Epistles in relation to Christian living.

Now there are two conclusions. One is that if you really mean that in your mind you choose to read the commandments from the New Testament only, I guess that is fine. But why the problem with saying, as the Puritan's and the Covenant theologians said, that this can be done by using the 10 commandments as a rule of life? If it's the same thing. Moo actually says he doesn't mind so maybe that is the answer and if so I withdraw my complaints against NCT.
Not Subject to the Law - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

 

[JonC]

We are no longer under the law as a means of justification or even of sanctification in the sense that you use obedience to the law as a means to improve your standing before God. So agree with this claim. But Paul also said the law is holy and that we are given the Spirit so that we can obey the law. If you are interested, on the Martin Lloyd-Jones sermon site there are two sermons on the first part of Romans Ch. 7 where he discusses this. Go to the second part and go right to the 42 minute mark. He lays out several verses with references that point out how Jesus and Paul actually quote the 10 commandments themselves in reference to the obedience and pursuit of holiness required of Christians. Dr. Moo even says the same thing - that all the commandments except keeping the sabbath are restated, directly by Jesus and the Epistles in relation to Christian living.

Now there are two conclusions. One is that if you really mean that in your mind you choose to read the commandments from the New Testament only, I guess that is fine. But why the problem with saying, as the Puritan's and the Covenant theologians said, that this can be done by using the 10 commandments as a rule of life? If it's the same thing. Moo actually says he doesn't mind so maybe that is the answer and if so I withdraw my complaints against NCT.
Not Subject to the Law - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

Nobody is saying God's moral law as expressed in the 10 Commandments do not apply.

This is an issue with Covenant Theology. They are so indoctrinated in the use of non-biblical covenants that there seems to be confusion on the biblical ones.

The Old Covenant Law was a covenant between God and Israel. That, not God's moral law, is what Paul refers to as the Law which ended. And that is what NCT refers to as the Law which ended.

 

[DaveXR650]

Nobody is saying God's moral law as expressed in the 10 Commandments do not apply.

I believe they are saying that. Points 40-47 or so of the NCT paper say that with the only vague hint in point 45 that the old moral code and the Decalogue "continues to inform behavior". Then it turns right around and in point 47 refutes that by saying all behavioral norms found in the Decalogue are defined and expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is a direct contradiction and it hints at what I was concerned about before - the move towards a Lutheran concept of doing away with any actual concrete "teaching" that a Christian has to follow with his rational mind. Does "found in the person and work of Jesus Christ mean the same as following the commandments of Jesus or are we moving towards a vague sense of being so united with Him that just the unity and oneness with Him will somehow make us do His will? We know Jesus said to keep his commandments so I assume we are to learn the teachings and then actually try to do them.

This sounds an awful lot like the book Tullian Tchividjian wrote using rehashed Lutheran theology. It had a lot of antinomianism in it and he quickly went on to show how it works in real life. (I think it was "Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything" or something like that.)

We just disagree about what NCT says. I think that the NCT teaches that the use of the 10 commandments as a "rule of life" is over and done and it would be wrong, according to them to teach that. From there there seems to be a division among themselves. Some think in practice that this means since between Jesus teaching and that of the Epistles ALL the Decalogue is restated except the Sabbath rules then all they are doing in my opinion is messing up someone's chance to read a passage of the Old Testament and just directly meditate on it and use it to their benefit. But the other group is actually trying to teach a more inner light type of philosophy, where you develop an ability to short circuit any rational discovery of God's will for you in specific terms because you now have these written on your heart. You are free an even obligated to come up with this spirit led plan for your behavior based on your personal belief of what the law written on your heart tells you to do.

What could possibly go wrong there? Well we see it. It could be an amicable divorce, as long as all parties end up with greater happiness, it could be that "love is love" so let's not look to specific rules on this. It could mean that elimination of poverty, or Critical Race Theory is elevated to a "gospel issue" because I have been guided in that by the law in my heart. It could mean that the worship of God can be transformed to a '80's soft rock concert if your new heart gives you the go ahead.

 

[DaveXR650]

Also, @JonC . If you like NCT, and if you believe it like the one branch, where everything in the Old Testament is just taught better and more completely in the New - you still are going to have to reconcile something in your own mind. If you read their section on the covenants in that paper it is clear that although they believe the covenants to be fulfilled, they do not think they were not Biblical or logical. They seem to have no problem with any of the covenants as to their truth or importance in their proper context.

 

[JonC]

I believe they are saying that. Points 40-47 or so of the NCT paper say that with the only vague hint in point 45 that the old moral code and the Decalogue "continues to inform behavior". Then it turns right around and in point 47 refutes that by saying all behavioral norms found in the Decalogue are defined and expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is a direct contradiction and it hints at what I was concerned about before - the move towards a Lutheran concept of doing away with any actual concrete "teaching" that a Christian has to follow with his rational mind. Does "found in the person and work of Jesus Christ mean the same as following the commandments of Jesus or are we moving towards a vague sense of being so united with Him that just the unity and oneness with Him will somehow make us do His will? We know Jesus said to keep his commandments so I assume we are to learn the teachings and then actually try to do them.

This sounds an awful lot like the book Tullian Tchividjian wrote using rehashed Lutheran theology. It had a lot of antinomianism in it and he quickly went on to show how it works in real life. (I think it was "Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything" or something like that.)

We just disagree about what NCT says. I think that the NCT teaches that the use of the 10 commandments as a "rule of life" is over and done and it would be wrong, according to them to teach that. From there there seems to be a division among themselves. Some think in practice that this means since between Jesus teaching and that of the Epistles ALL the Decalogue is restated except the Sabbath rules then all they are doing in my opinion is messing up someone's chance to read a passage of the Old Testament and just directly meditate on it and use it to their benefit. But the other group is actually trying to teach a more inner light type of philosophy, where you develop an ability to short circuit any rational discovery of God's will for you in specific terms because you now have these written on your heart. You are free an even obligated to come up with this spirit led plan for your behavior based on your personal belief of what the law written on your heart tells you to do.

What could possibly go wrong there? Well we see it. It could be an amicable divorce, as long as all parties end up with greater happiness, it could be that "love is love" so let's not look to specific rules on this. It could mean that elimination of poverty, or Critical Race Theory is elevated to a "gospel issue" because I have been guided in that by the law in my heart. It could mean that the worship of God can be transformed to a '80's soft rock concert if your new heart gives you the go ahead.

What it means is that we are under God's moral law as was those in the Old Testament. It was a sin to violate God's moral law even before the giving of the Old Covenant Law.

Paul even teaches us this when he explains sin before the Old Covenant Law was given.

Cain sinned when he murdered Able even though this occurred before the Old Covenant Law was given. Noah sinned when he became drunk. Moses sinned when he murdered the Egyptian.


NCT bases God's moral law on God Himself - on His nature - rather than on a covenant given to Israel through Moses.

The problem with your limiting God:s moral law to a specific period and people group in history is that you are ignoring God's sovereignty and immutable nature.

God's moral law is and always was, per NCT, applicable to all mankind for all times. It applied before the Old Covenant Law was given. And it applies universally (not just to those people under the Old Covenant).

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This applies even before the Old Covenant Law, and to people Scripture says we're not under the Old Covenant Law.

 

[JonC]

Also, @JonC . If you like NCT, and if you believe it like the one branch, where everything in the Old Testament is just taught better and more completely in the New - you still are going to have to reconcile something in your own mind. If you read their section on the covenants in that paper it is clear that although they believe the covenants to be fulfilled, they do not think they were not Biblical or logical. They seem to have no problem with any of the covenants as to their truth or importance in their proper context.

I disagree.

NCT views the biblical covenants to be pointing to Christ. This does not mean they did not have additional immediate significance. NCT holds that the four redemptive covenants in the text of Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) point to the Promise (Christ, the New Covenant).

The Old Covenant is the Mosaic Law (it is called the "Old Covenant" because it is God's covenant with Israel as His elect nation).

The difference is where NCT interprets the Old Covenant as pointing to the New Covenant and being fulfilled in Christ, Covenant Theology interprets biblical covenants as different administrations of "covenants" that are not even in the Bible. They ignore all biblical covenants in that sense (they make the covenants in the Bible less actual covenants and more expressions of their own theoretical "covenants").

Why do you believe God had no moral law before the Old Covenant was given? How do you interpret Paul's insistence that those who lived before Moses still sinned, just apart from the Law?

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem with your limiting God:s moral law to a specific period and people group in history is that you are ignoring God's sovereignty and immutable nature.

I'm at a loss here because I don't think I said that. Where did you get that? That is one of my concerns with NCT. THEY seem to clearly say that God's moral law does not apply in the New Testament and they try to prove it by saying that this is the case even if you try to separate out the ceremonial from the moral law. My problem with that is that even if you say that the law of Christ is now what we look to the fact is that it still IS God's moral law as Dr. Moo said. The other problem is that in Galatians, the example of improperly following the law is circumcision which is ceremonial. Then what almost immediately follows is a restating of the moral law with a warning that it still must be obeyed.
40. The Ten Commandments are not "God's eternal moral law" first written on the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind.
41. The Decalogue is not "transcovenantal".
I'm not the one limiting God's moral law to a specific period, they are, and you too, if you agree with them.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe God had no moral law before the Old Covenant was given? How do you interpret Paul's insistence that those who lived before Moses still sinned, just apart from the Law?

There again. Why would you ask me to explain why I believe something that I don't believe? I would interpret Paul's insistence that those who lived before Moses still sinned because the moral law, though not given in official stone tablets was already in effect as moral law and still is by the way. Of course, once again, point 40 and 41 above are from the NCT official statement and THEY are the ones you should have a problem with.

I have to be honest with you. I could easily be all wet on this New Covenant Theology stuff. But when I read the stuff @Martin Marprelate wrote explaining covenant theology in general and when I listen to Lloyd-Jones explain the proper role of the law for a Christian I find that what we call Reformed theology seems more linear and clear and easier to follow. There is something slightly off with NCT as expressed in their paper but I just don't have the ability to explain it well. But I think there is a reason that it is not really a "thing" as of yet. The fact that Piper somewhat endorses it doesn't surprise me. He somewhat endorsed Mark Driscoll, Critical Race Theory, and sometimes comes up with outrageous comments on certain issues.

So right now, in my opinion, NCT may have a few problems. But if not, then it's so close to what's already being taught that I don't see the need for it. To me, if you have problems with using a covenantal overlay for studying theology then just go with some form of dispensationalism like MacArthur does.

 

[JonC]

There again. Why would you ask me to explain why I believe something that I don't believe?

To demonstrate (as an explanation) what you are doing insofar as NCT is concerned

NCT says that the Mosaic Law is not God's moral law.

That was where you drew a line, insisting that NCT was wrong to view the Mosaic Covenant as not over us today.

But with your last two posts, you sound closer to NCT than you previously indicated.

 

[JonC]

I'm at a loss here because I don't think I said that. Where did you get that? That is one of my concerns with NCT. THEY seem to clearly say that God's moral law does not apply in the New Testament and they try to prove it by saying that this is the case even if you try to separate out the ceremonial from the moral law. My problem with that is that even if you say that the law of Christ is now what we look to the fact is that it still IS God's moral law as Dr. Moo said. The other problem is that in Galatians, the example of improperly following the law is circumcision which is ceremonial. Then what almost immediately follows is a restating of the moral law with a warning that it still must be obeyed.
40. The Ten Commandments are not "God's eternal moral law" first written on the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind.
41. The Decalogue is not "transcovenantal".
I'm not the one limiting God's moral law to a specific period, they are, and you too, if you agree with them.

You make a serious error here. The reason is you are pulling 2 points out from the whole and coming up with what they would mean within Covenant Theology.

Yes, NCT holds that we are not under the Old Covenant Law (which they define as the Law of Moses). That was a covenant between God and Israel starting at a particular stage in Israels development.

Yes, NCT believes we are not to live under the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.

You got that part right.

Where you seem to struggle is in the fact you constantly equate God's moral law with the Law of Moses in dealing with NCT.

NCT believes the moral aspects of the Law of Moses are based on God's moral law BUT are not that law itself.

In other words, people who sinned before the Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel (those forefathers to whom God said the Covenant did not apply) were still under God's moral law.

Gentiles who Paul says are not under the Old Covenant Law were still under God's moral law.

 

[DaveXR650]

NCT says that the Mosaic Law is not God's moral law.

That was where you drew a line, insisting that NCT was wrong to view the Mosaic Covenant as not over us today.

No. We are indeed not under the Mosaic Covenant today. But the laws, written in the Mosaic covenant, the moral part, the part that is restated by Jesus and Paul, and Peter in the Epistles, is indeed still a standard that we can look to as a way of life. In fact our new life as Christians will be in a large part pursuing holiness and obedience to Christ. Christ has provided the righteousness we need for salvation. The Holy Spirit provides the power to live this new life and the desire. NCT does seem fine in that it stresses just how much we need to view ourselves as "in Christ" and to look to Him for all this. But the moral part of the Mosaic law is the same as God's moral law and it's also the same as the law of Christ and the ethical teachings in the Epistles. All I have been saying is that if you really read the Puritan writers explaining all this using the Decalogue you will find they explain the preeminence of Christ in all this, the need for the Holy Spirit in supplying the power and motivation for all this, and the true meaning of these commandments as amplified and explained by Jesus himself and Paul. They had a complete understanding of the union with Christ and of the fact that obedience to the moral law does not justify or sanctify. I'm having trouble seeing just what NCT adds to our understanding now that you cannot find reading a traditional covenant theologian of the 1700's. What I am seeing is something that will once again cause Christians not to want to spend time in the Old Testament in a devotional way, which I think would be a shame.

 

[JonC]

No. We are indeed not under the Mosaic Covenant today. But the laws, written in the Mosaic covenant, the moral part, the part that is restated by Jesus and Paul, and Peter in the Epistles, is indeed still a standard that we can look to as a way of life.

Now you get it.

NCT does not say ANY of God's moral laws are obsolete.

The only difference here is you view God as restating moral parts of the Mosaic Law where NCT views the Mosaic Law as being established by Christ (by God, His moral law).

And there is a difference in authority. You objected to NCT saying we are not under the Mosaic Law but instead under the Law of Christ. NCT views our obedience to the moral laws as obedience to Christ (if you love Him you will obey His commandments).

Granted, either way one will refrain from sinful actions. But the NCT places the reason we obey in the person of Christ - we are to be holy because He is holy - rather than obedience to a covenant God gave to a specific people at a specific time in the Old Testament.

What does NCT add? Nothing. That is the point. Rather than developing a system of extra-biblical covenants NCT relies on Christ.

Covenant Theology uses "covenants" that are forced into the biblical narrative. The covenant of works is unbiblical and based on a logical fallacy. The covenant of redemption is extra-biblical and tries to establish theology by going around Christ. The covenant of grace is unbiblical and extracts all significance from the covenants that are actually in the Bible.

Whether right or wrong NCT takes its authority from Scripture and it's view literally from what is written in the text of God's Word.

Whether right or wrong Covenant Theology takes its authority from men who were wrestling with Roman Catholicism and imposed a way of viewing Scripture that supported their understanding.

Why criticize NCT, even if you think it incorrect, when Covenant Theology is complete extra-biblical in its framework?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The covenant of works is very clearly found in Scripture. God has appointed a covenant with the day and the night (Jeremiah 33:25). He has not asked for the agreement of day and night, but simply appointed it.
As I have shown, Genesis 2:15-17 contains all the aspects of a Biblical covenant. God makes a gracious provision for the man, give, both for his pleasure and sustenance, gives him simple tasks to do and sets a condition for the continuance of the covenant. To cavil that the word 'covenant' does not appear is to adopt the same attitude that Jehovah's Witnesses take against the Trinity. The word does not appear; therefore the doctrine must be false.

But in fact the covenant of works clearly appears in Hosea 6:7. 'But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me.' The Hebrew word keadam can also be translated as 'like men' as it is in the KJV and elsewhere, but that is a tautology. Of course they acted like men - they were men! To translate keadam as 'like Adam' is far more revealing.
The Hebrew word only occurs twice more in the O.T. SFAIK: in Job 31:33, we read, 'If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom,' speaks of Adams hiding from the Lord after the Fall into sin (Genesis 3:8-10). In Psalms 82:7, 'But you shall die like men' is again a tautology; of course they will die like men - they are men! To translate as 'You shall all die like Adam' is much more powerful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jeremiah 31:31-34. [URL='https://www.baptistboard.com/bible/jeremiah/31:31/']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: 32 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:[/URL] 33 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, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

So in what way does the text say that new covenant differs from the covenant made with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt? It differs in respect of where the law was written. Under the old covenant, the law was written on tablets of stone; under the new, it is written on the hearts of its people. This is seen very clearly in the conditional nature of the Sinaitic covenant as opposed to the unconditional nature of verse 34 and also of the covenants of promise.

Gen 9:11(Noahic). Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ.

Compare also Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10. The old covenant was broken by Israel because God's law was written on stone tablets. The new covenant will not be broken because that same law is written on the hearts His new covenant people.

That it is the same law that was written on stone tablets which is now written on the hearts of believers is shown in 2 Corinthians 3:1-8. Here Paul uses the very same words to speak of the stone tablets in the LXX in Exodus 31:18 and 34:4. The ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel were not written on stone, but in a book (Exodus 24:3-7; compare with verse 12). These laws are not written on the hearts of believers; only that which was written on the stone tablets is now written on believers' hearts.