Comments on: Merit and Moses (Part 3) https://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/13/merit-and-moses-part-3/  Informing Minds. Moving Hearts. Directing Hands. Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Martin https://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/13/merit-and-moses-part-3/#comment-46375 Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:27:00 +0000 http://headhearthand.org/?p=18577#comment-46375 Hello again David, and thanks for your summaries.
I think that it is too strong a claim to suggest that the WCF declares the Mosaic Covenant to be a covenant of grace. Suggesting that the covenant of grace was operating in the time of the law is not stating that the Law was the covenant. The promises and sacrifices, for instance, are largely found in the Genesis account, in which the Patriarchs were instrumental – not Moses. No TLFN person denies that grace was in operation in the Old Covenant, so the issue is confused when it is then suggested that the Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of grace, when it is clearly described as a Covenant of Works in other places. WCF 7.3 states that “Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant…” Do you believe then that the Mosaic Covenant provides a way of salvation for man? Clearly it does not. So it cannot be a covenant of grace, as the WCF makes clear.

You propose that the only repetition of Eden in Moses is the moral law, so why doesn’t the WCF say that. In fact, on 2 occasions (19:6), the WCF refers to the use of the Law for believers and qualifies that it not be as a covenant of works to them. “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned…” Therefore, I’m sure you can recognize that the WCF considers that the Law was a covenant of works for Israel (at least), by which individuals would be either justified or condemned. That is the plain reading of it.

If I could labor your attention a little longer, I would like to interact with your statement: “Third, as a covenant of works can only be enacted with sinless man, it
is impossible for God to renew a covenant of works with fallen man.”
May I suggest that in Abraham Israel was a redeemed community, and that God did not consider its transgressions against them (Law bring wrath, and where there is no law, there is no transgression Rom 4:15). As a redeemed community, its eternal standing could only move one way, as was the case with Adam. Adam was in grace (taken from the earth and placed in God’s garden), disobedience resulted in his expulsion from God’s favor. Israel was in the same position as Adam. Israel, after the law, was on a ‘one strike and you’re out’ basis. So when the first documented sin took place after the commandments were first given, God made His position clear to Moses: “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book” (Exod. 32:33). Paul considered the severity of the Law so great that he considered that anyone who was under it was under a curse, because the law required perfect obedience (Gal 3:10). That is why the Law is not of faith, not according to Escondido, but Paul. Temporal blessings of land etc. are red herrings, the main game is eternal salvation, and that was what was lost to Israel via the introduction of the Law.

However, just to be clear, the covenant of grace was operating in this period of the law for anybody who could put their faith in Jesus, as the WCF makes clear (7:3). The Elect were there, though few in number, benefiting from the Abrahamic Covenant by resembling their father who saw Jesus day and was glad. The majority, however, were blinded to Christ; as Moses declared on behalf of God – “I will hide my face from them and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful” (Deut 32:20). If the Law was of faith then wouldn’t it be logical to reveal Christ so that Israel could believe? Couldn’t Saul, a great Hebrew scholar sincerely dedicated to the Torah, have the opportunity to see Jesus in the Law? His study of Moses did not give him faith, but made him an enemy of Christ. The benefit that you and I have enjoyed by God’s grace and the working of His Spirit is to have opened eyes to see Jesus.
Kind regards,
Martin

]]> By: Leah Jones https://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/13/merit-and-moses-part-3/#comment-46290 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:57:00 +0000 http://headhearthand.org/?p=18577#comment-46290 Because comments are closed on the post about Doug Phillips, I wanted to personally thank you for writing such a nice post about him. I’ve just read some really nasty articles and posts about him and that just makes me so sad…some of them even “Christian”.
As believers, we should never kick a person when he’s down. I happen to believe Mr. Phillips’ statement that he gave back in September 2013, though it deeply saddened me at the time. What makes me sadder is the way he’s being kicked around by those who didn’t agree with his message. Whether we agreed with him or not, we should just never, ever make blanket statements about a person we don’t know personally.
Again, thank you so much for giving such a sensitive topic such a polite voice.

]]> By: shawn mathis https://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/13/merit-and-moses-part-3/#comment-46287 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:28:00 +0000 http://headhearthand.org/?p=18577#comment-46287 Thank you for reviewing and summarizing the book. The summaries you offer help put the issue clearly: “The fourth problem is that it radically separates the Old Testament believer’s experience from the New Testament believer. The sincere imperfect NT believer is rewarded on a principle of grace not works. Yet the same imperfect act by an OT believer is rewarded on a principle of merit.”

]]>