Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Thoughts on Exodus 15:22-27, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Gospel

by

I had a very stimulating conversation with a co-worker this morning about Exodus 15:22-27, and what follows are reflections from that conversation.

Exodus 15:1-21 marks the end of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Exodus 15:22-27 thus marks the beginning of a transitional section between that redemption and the giving of the Mosaic covenant (a section that begins with chapter 19). This transitional section (15:22-18:27) begins with three pericopes in which the people are grumbling against Yhwh and against Moses regarding food and water. These three pericopes reveal that even though Israel was physically redeemed from Egypt, the Israelites were still in need of new hearts. They still needed redemption from sin.

At the end of the first of these grumbling pericopes, the text provides a brief preview of the Mosaic covenant: “There Yhwh made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, saying, ‘If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yhwh your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am Yhwh, your healer'” (ESV, adj.).

Note the conditional nature of the statement: If Israel keeps Yhwh’s law, then God will keep the judgments of Egypt from Israel. The implication is that if Israel does not keep Yhwh’s law they will receive the judgments of Egypt themselves. A case and point would be the locust plague Israel experienced as recorded in Joel 1.

Note also Yhwh’s identification of himself at the end of this statement, “for I am Yhwh, your healer.” This is given as a reason for why Yhwh will not bring the diseases of Egypt upon Israel. It is not a statement that Yhwh will heal Israel from these diseases. My coworker observed that an attentive listener to this statement from Yhwh would recognize that he is the one that needs to be healed so that he will be able to obey Yhwh’s law and not have these diseases come upon him.

The fact that this pericope is followed by two more in which Israel grumbles at Yhwh demonstrates that the nation did not come to Yhwh for healing. Israel’s rebellion at the golden calf incident and in Numbers shows that Israel remained in need of healing.

Significantly, Deuteronomy 28-29 describes at length the conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant. It describes the covenant blessings for obedience and the covenant curses for disobedience. Deuteronomy 29:4 reveals that Yhwh had not yet given the people new hearts, and 30:1 reveals that Israel will in the end come under the covenant curses. In this context Moses looks forward to the new covenant (30:5-10), and indicates that participation in this future new covenant could be theirs by faith right then (Dt 30:11-14; cf. Rom 10:6-9).

From the beginning it is clear that the Mosaic covenant is conditional and that this is bad news for sinners who will not be able to meet its condition. And from the beginning it is clear that the Mosiac covenant preaches the gospel to sinners by directing them to Yhwh, the only one who can heal them from their sins.

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel

by

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works According to William Strong marries in its title two things that God has joined together that man should never rend asunder: deep theology and doxalogical application. Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel summarizes and explains a section of Puritan William Strong’s A Discourse of the Two Covenants.

Though I had not heard of Strong until Parr introduced him to me, his work of recovery is valuable. Strong’s covenant theology is exegetically deeper than any recent writing on the covenant of works that I’ve read. In addition to exegetical depth, Parr also brings out the rich applicational and devotional aspects of Strong’s work.

The extensive footnotes are a bonus feature. They compare and contrast Strong’s teaching with that of other Puritans. Thus, the reader is educated on the continuities and discontinuities of Puritan thought on the various topics under discussion. In this way the book is a broader entry into Puritan thought on the covenant of works.

Those holding dispensational or progressive covenantal positions may wonder if it is worth their while to read this treatise on the covenant of works. The answer is a clear, “yes.” First, though some dispensationalists reject the idea of a covenant of works, not all do. There is no systemic need for them to do so, and there are important theological reasons for them to affirm a covenant of works. Progressive covenantalists already hold to a creation covenant, and there are good theological reasons for them to view the creation covenant as a covenant of works. People from both systems will benefit from reading Strong’s case that the covenant of works is truly a necessary backdrop for the glorious gospel.

This is not to say that dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and even certain Baptist covenant theologians won’t find areas of disagreement, especially in the discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to the covenants of works and grace. However, Strong, as summarized by Parr, gives the best and most nuanced argument for the view that the Mosaic law is an administration of the covenant of grace that I’ve read. Though this is not my position, I think Strong’s argument is one that readers of every persuasion ought to reckon with.