Reed,
Sorry for the lengthy response time.

I think that Murray confounds the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants by
lumping them together as essentially the same Covenant. Thus there
is no room for one of them being obsolete, of for one of them being
the letter that kills, once we get to the NT interpretations of the
OT Covenants.

Essentially, I see the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of a FORM
of the covenant of works, not exactly as the covenant of works
itself. I say a form of the Covenant of Works because it does not
ever offer salvation to Israel; rather it only offers a fat life in
the land if they are able to keep all of its commands, and death if
they do not.

Thus, God was not offering another plan of salvation as the
dispensationalists erroneously concur, but also He was not simply
offering another covenant of Grace.
Here is where I think a lot of Murray-ites begin to slip up because
they cannot see that a works based covenant could actually serve the
purposes of the covenant of Grace. Thus, they think they need to
find a way for the Mosaic covenant to be gracious. However, what is
actually the most gracious thing about Moses, is that there is no
grace in it.
What do I mean? I mean that it's unrelenting demands illustrated
more powerfully, mankind's need for a savior.

The purpose of the Mosaic covenant is to show mankind that they
cannot dwell with God based upon their works. God set up Israel as
an object lesson, or a canvas on which to paint the picture of
redemption. Thus they illustrate mankind's complete inability to
measure up to what it takes to dwell with God, and that lesson is
preached with severe clarity to us PRECISELY because God did not
place them in a gracious covenant but rather a works based covenant.

But since it was not a covenant that even offered salvation, it does
not conflict at all the coexisting covenant of grace, by which all
those in OT Israel who believed were saved. But to equate Moses
and Abraham either removes the grace from Abraham, or removes the
works from Moses. How any one can read Genesis 15 and Deuteronomy
28 and concluded that the two covenants are essentially the same is
beyond me.

Some will argue that since God included a sacrificial system and
dealt graciously with Israel then it follows that the Mosaic
Covenant was one of grace. But God's choice to act mercifully
and
not to inflict His just wrath on Israel for their disobedience does
not mean that the COVENANT is gracious. It simply means that God
was merciful in not immediately bringing on the sanctions that their
works based covenant made clear.

Let me know if I have even come close to answering your questions.

Tom Wenger
4th Presbyterian Church
Bethesda, MD



--- In bbwarfield@yahoogroups.com, "Reed DePace" <radp@s...> wrote:
> Tom:
>
> I'll respond and show my ignorance.
>
> Its probably that I'm not as well read up on Murray as I would
like (he's on
> the list). I have carefully read his short work on the covenant
though.
>
> Could you flesh out for me, specifically, how you think he
confounds the
> Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant?
>
> It may be my misunderstanding, but I'm wondering, more
particularly, how you
> view the Mosaic covenant in terms of its relationship to either
the Covenant
> of Works, the Covenant of Grace, or both.
>
> I know I still need some "tightening up" work, so I'm nopiing you
can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> reed
> reed depace
> By God's Grace
> preacher/teacher (TE)
> Reformed Presybterian Church of Slate Lick (PCA)
> 907 Freeport Rd
> Freeport PA 16229-1824