The Mosaic Covenant

Westminster Confession, 7.4-6

“This covenant of grace… was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel; under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called, the Old Testament… 

There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.”




Expositions of the Ten Commandments

The Civil Law

The Ceremonial Law

On the State of the Saints Under the Old Testament



Order of Contents

Start Here
Puritanism on the Graciousness of the Mosaic Covenant
The Westminster Confession & the Mosaic Covenant
Contemporary Articles
Serious Error



Start Here


Herman WitsiusEconomy of the Covenants, 2:184  1677

[Witsius is explaining the Jewish error that was tempting the Galatian Christians, which Paul rebukes.  Speaking of the Covenant of Grace published at Sinai, Witsius says:]

“However the carnal Israelites, not adverting to God’s purpose or intention, as they ought, mistook the true meaning of that covenant, embraced it as a covenant of works, and by it sought for righteousness.”



King, Adam – ‘A Survey of the Mosaic Covenant’  2013  16 pp.

This is the best, easy to read introduction to the Mosaic Covenant.  King is a former minister of the RPCNA. 

Beeke, Joel; Jones, Mark – “The Puritans on the Old and New Covenants: A Gracious Moses?”  about 20 pages, being chapter 17 of A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life  Buy

Beeke and Jones give a survey of the Mosaic Covenant in the puritan era, note that the doctrine of the Republication of the Covenant of Works (in its older variety) was a minority view, and expound Moses from the scriptures with many experiential applications as a Covenant of Grace.  


Quote:  Was the Israelites’ Inheriting the Land by Grace, or a Graciously Accommodated Merit?

John Ball,  A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, p. 142  Buy  1645  This work was very influential upon the Westminster Assembly.

“Under this [Mosaic] Covenant, the natural seed of Abraham bore the face of the Church and state, and God had promised abundance of temporals, and of spiritual, a scantling; But all under the outward administration of the Covenant were not in like manner partakers of the blessings promised in Covenant.  For some had their part in temporal blessings only, and the outward ordinances; others were partakers of the spiritual blessings promised.

But whatever good thing any of them enjoyed either temporal or spiritual, it was conferred upon them freely according to the Covenant of Grace, and not for the dignity of their works.  It is true, the promise is conditional, if they obey, they shall reap the good things of the Land: but obedience was not a causal condition, why they should inherit the Land…  

So that herein there appears no intexture of the Covenant of works with the Covenant of Grace, nor any moderation of the Law to the strength and power of nature for the obtaining of outward blessings.  But rather that God out of his abundant goodness is pleased freely to confer outward blessings promised in the Covenant upon some that did not cleave to him unfeignedly [purely], that he might make good his promise unto the spiritual seed, which by word and oath he had confirmed unto the Fathers.”



Puritan Works on the Graciousness of the Mosaic Covenant


Ball, John – A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, Chapters 7 & 8  Buy  1645  50 pp.

Geerhardus Vos: 

“Because his treatise appeared during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly, just at the time when it set itself to framing the confession, and because it moreover borrowed from Ball in the standards, one naturally supposes that his influence can be detected in its formulation of the doctrine of the covenant.”

Blake, Thomas – ‘The Old Covenant was a Pure Gospel Covenant and not Mixed’  1652, 8 pp. being chapter 35 of his The Covenant of God  Buy

Warren, Edward – Caleb’s Inheritance in Canaan by Grace, not Works: an answer to a book entitled, The Doctrine of Baptism and Distinction of the Covenants, lately published by Thomas Patient…  (London : George Sawbridge, 1656)

Warren (fl.1656-) was a reformed puritan.

Roberts, Francis – “Of God’s giving the Law on Mount Sinai as a Covenant, and that of Faith”  1657, 90 pp., being Book 3, Chapter 4, Aphorism 2 of The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible: God’s Covenants with Man, with an Introduction and Extended Outline

This is the best piece to read on the Mosaic Covenant.  Roberts wrote the puritan magnum opus on Covenant Theology (it being 1,700 pages).  In his section on the Mosaic Covenant, Roberts deals with the four views propounded of the Mosaic Covenant during his day:

(1) that it was a covenant of works;
(2) that it was mixed, having both elements of the Covenant of Grace and of the Covenant of Works;
(3) that it was a national covenant subservient to the Covenant of Grace;
(4) that it was a Covenant of Grace;

The first position was that taken by the Dutch work, Synopsis of a Pure Theology.  The second position was taken by Johannes Cocceius.  The third position was largely that of the Amyraldians.  The final position was that of the confessional consensus of orthodox Calvinism.  For a summary of this work see Lim’s work above.

Note that what the Westminster Confession and modern writers call the Covenant of Grace, Roberts prefers to call the Covenant of Faith.

Flavel, John – Vindiciae Legis et Foederis [Vindications of the Law and Covenant]: or a Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call  in Works, vol. 6

This piece is excellent.  Cary was a baptist who held that (1) the Mosaic Covenant was fundamentally a covenant of works and that (2) the Gospel-Covenant is in every way unconditional.  Flavel argues against both these points.

“The difference between us here is not:

(1) Whether both these [the Covenant of Works with Adam and the Mosaic Covenant] be called covenants in Scripture?  Nor
(2) Whether there was no grace at all in both, or either of them; for we are agreed , it is grace in God to enter into covenant with man, whatever that covenant be.  Nor
(3) Whether the Sinai law be not a covenant of works to some men, by their own fault and occasion?  Nor
(4) Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein carnal justiciaries apprehend and take it; and by rejecting Christ, make it so to themselves?  Nor
(5) Whether the very matter of the law of nature be not revived and represented in the Sinai law?

These are not the points we contend about.  But the question is:

Whether the Sinai law do in its own nature, and according to God’s purpose and design in the promulgation of it, revive the law of nature, to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam’s covenant; and so be properly and truly a covenant of works? 

Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes, viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first covenant, instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance observance of them for righteousness and life, He did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness, humble proud nature, and show them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ, now exhibited in the new covenant, as the only refuge to fallen sinners?” – p. 323

Gillespie, Patrick – The Ark of the Testament Opened, or the Secret of the Lord’s Covenant Unsealed, in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace…  (London, 1661), part 1, ch. 3, ‘Of a Covenant with God’, pp. 152-164 & ch. 5, ‘Of the Covenant of Works’, pp. 177-219

Dr. Ryan McGraw gives a summary, outline and annotations on this section of Gillespie (which is not online) in his article, ‘Patrick Gillespie on the Covenant of Works’, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Further excerpts may be found at The Mosaic Covenant: ‘Patrick Gillespie’ & the Heidelblog, ‘Patrick Gillespie: Moses Was A Pedagogical Republication Of The Covenant Of Works’.  Dr. R. Scott Clark is a proponent of the modern view of the Mosaic Covenant being a Republication of the Covenant of Works.

Wall, Thomas

Baptism Anatomized being Propounded in Five Queries…  Wherein the right that the infants of believers have to water-baptism is vindicated…  and wherein also is proved, that the covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. and with Israel Exodus ch. 19 and Deut. 29 are the Covenant of Grace in Christ, and not part of the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his fall  (London, 1691)

Infants’ Baptism from Heaven, of Divine Institution. Being a brief yet satisfactory answer to some objections made by Hercules Collins, in his book entitled, Believers Baptism from Heaven, Infants Baptism from Earth, etc. against certain truths proved in a book entitled, Baptism Anatomized…  and wherein is also proved that the covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17 and with Israel, Exod. 19 and Deut. 29, are the Covenant of Grace in Christ, and not part of the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his Fall  (London, 1692)

Turretin, Francis – 12th Topic, Q. 12, ‘Whether the Sinaitic Legal Covenant, made by Moses with the People of Israel on Mt. Sinai, was a Certain Third Covenant Distinct in Species From the Covenant of Nature & the Covenant of Grace.  We Deny.  in Institutes  (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 262-271



A Brakel, Wilhelmus – ‘Is the Mosaic Covenant the Covenant of Grace?’  from The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 4, pp. 402-408

Anonymous – pp. 16-20  of The Snake in the Grass: or, Remarks upon a book, entitled, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: touching both the covenant of works and of grace, etc. Originally done by E.F. about the year 1645: and lately revised, corrected and published by the Reverend Mr. James Hog  (Edinburgh, May 14, 1719)  47 pp.


In Latin

Heidegger, Johann Heinrich – Ch. 13, Theses 38-41, ‘Of the Nature & Antiquation of the Sinaitic Covenant’  in The Marrow of Christian Theology: an Introductory Epitome of the Body of Theology  (Zurich, 1713)



Puritanism on the Graciousness of the Mosaic Covenant:  Secondary Sources

Kevan, Ernest – The Grace of the Law  Buy  no date  294 pp.

This book was the substance of Dr. Kevan’s (†1965) dissertation on the Law in the thought of puritanism.  The book is excellent.  There is a chapter giving a survey of puritan views on the Mosaic Covenant, which is gold.  Dr. Kevan was the first principle of London Bible College, now the London School of Theology.

Lim, Won Taek – ‘The Sinai Covenant’ and ‘The Sinai Covenant as a Covenant of Faith’  2000  17 pp. (pp. 168-185) & 43 pp. (pp. 224-267) respectively, being two chapters from his dissertation, The Covenant Theology of Francis Roberts

Lim’s dissertation surveys the monumental work on Covenant Theology by the English puritan Francis Roberts (1609–1675).  Lim helpfully summarizes Roberts’ section on the Mosaic Covenant, demonstrating that it was a Covenant of Grace (which Roberts calls a Covenant of Faith).  See below to read Roberts first hand. 



The Westminster Confession and the Mosaic Covenant

Ramsey, D. Patrick – In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique Kline and Karlberg  2004  32 pp.  After opening the link, one has to click ‘here’ in order to open up the article, where it says: ‘Click here to download your attachment’.  This article originally appeared in Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004) pp. 373-400.  

Ramsey demonstrates that Meredith Kline and Mark Karlberg’s doctrine of the Republication of the Covenant of Works in Moses alongside the Covenant of Grace is not in accord with the teaching of the Westminster Confession. 

Strimple, Robert B. – “Westminster Confession of Faith:  Was the Mosaic Covenant a Republication of the Covenant of Works?”  no date, 9 pages 

Dr. Strimple argues for the plain sense of the Westminster Confession contra the authors of ‘The Law is Not of Faith’ and R. Scott Clark.



An Excellent Website

The Mosaic Covenant in Reformed Theology 

This website is dedicated to documenting the primary sources from puritanism relating to the Mosaic Covenant.



Contemporary Articles

Dennison, Jr., James T., Scott F. Sanborn, and Benjamin W. Swinburnson. “Merit or ‘Entitlement’ in Reformed Covenant Theology: A Review Article.” 2009, 150 pages, from Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary 24.3 (Dec 2009): 3-152.

Venema, Cornelis P. “The Mosaic Covenant: a ‘Republication’ of the Covenant of Works?  A Review Article: The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in The Mosaic Covenant.”  2010, 65 pages, from Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 35-101.

Jones, Mark – ‘In What Sense? A Review Article’ of the book, The Law is Not of Faith  2010  Ordained Servant Online of the OPC

A very clear, good and helpful article.

Letham, Robert – “Not a Covenant of Works in Disguise” (Herman Bavinck): the Place of the Mosaic Covenant in Redemptive History  MAJT 24 (2013): 143-177

Dunson, Ben – “‘The law evidently is not contrary to faith’: Galatians and the Republication of the Covenant of Works,” WTJ 79.2 (2017): 243-66  Online at

Ramsay, Patrick – ‘From Frying Pan to Fire?’  2019  7 paragraphs at





Stewart, Alexander – The Tree of Promise; or, the Mosaic Economy a Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace  (Edinburgh, 1864)

Stewart (1764-1821) was an evangelical Church of Scotland minister.



Elam, Andrew; Van Kooten, Robert; Bergquist, Randall – Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication  Buy  2014, 172 pp.

See the Buy link for a synopsis of the book.

Chinnavan, Jegar – The Mosaic Covenant: an Administration of the Covenant of Grace  Masters thesis  Ref  (Puritan Theological Seminary, 2014)





Marshall, Stephen

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants (London: Stephen Bowtell, 1644), pp. 11-12  bound with A Defence of Infant-Baptism in Answer to Two Treatises (London, 1646)

“…neither did the Lord promise [Israel] entrance into, or continuance in that Land, but upon the same conditions upon which hee promiseth eternall life, as true Faith in the Gospel, with the love and feare of God, and obedience of his Commandments: Godliness having then, as it hath now and always, the promise of good things for this life, and the life to come.”


The Formula Consensus Helvetica [The Swiss Form of Consensus]  1675

trans. Martin I. Klauber, Trinity Journal 11 (1990): pp. 103-23  See Wikipedia for background.

“Canon XXIV:  But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of times has also different dispensations.  For when the Apostle speaks of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that is, the administration of the last time (Eph 1:10), he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensation and administration until the times which the Father appointed. Yet in the dispensation of the Covenant of Grace the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Angel of his presence (Isa 63:9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and faith in him and in the Father and his Spirit. For Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). And by His grace we believe that we are saved in the same manner as the Fathers also were saved, and in both Testaments these statutes remain unchanged: “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him,” (the Son) (Ps 2:12); “He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). “You believe in God,” even the Father, “believe also in me” (John 14:1).  But if, moreover, the holy Fathers believed in Christ as their God, it follows that they also believed in the Holy Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord. Truly there are so many clearer exhibitions of this faith of the Fathers and of the necessity of such faith in either Covenant, that they can not escape any one unless one wills it.  But though this saving knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the dispensation of that time, both from thc promise and from shadows and figures and mysteries, with greater difficulty than in the NT. Yet it was a true knowledge, and, in proportion to the measure of divine Revelation, it was sufficient to procure salvation and peace of conscience for the elect, by the help of God’s grace.

Canon XXV:  We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel, different in their entire nature and essence, and in explaining these and assigning their differences, so intricately entangle themselves that they greatly obscure and even impair the nucleus of solid truth and piety. Nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the OT dispensation, of knowledge of Christ and faith in him and his satisfaction and in the whole sacred Trinity, to speculate much too loosely and



Bavinck, Herman

Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, pt. 2, ch. 5, ‘The Covenant in Old Testament Salvation History’, p. 222

“Just as Abraham, when God allied Himself with him, was obligated to ‘walk before his face’, so Israel as a people was similarly admonished by God’s covenant to a new obedience.  The entire law, which the covenant of grace at Mount Sinai took into its service, is intended to prompt Israel as a people to ‘walk’ in the way of the covenant.  It is but an explication of the one statement to Abraham: ‘Walk before me, and be blameless [Gen. 17:1], and therefore no more a cancellation of the covenant of grace and the foundation of a covenant of works than this word spoken to Abraham.

The law of Moses, accordingly, is not antithetical to grace but subservient to it and was also thus understood and praised in every age by Israel’s pious men and women.  But detached from the covenant of grace, it indeed became a letter that kills, a ministry of condemnation.

Another reason why in the time of the Old Testament the covenant of grace took the law into its service was that it might arouse the consciousness of sin, increase the felt need for salvation, and reinforce the expectation of an even richer revelation of God’s grace.  It is from that perspective that Paul views especially the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace.  He writes that Israel as a minor, placed under the care of the law, had to be led to Christ (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:23f.; 4:1f.) and that in that connection sin would be increased and the uselessness of works for justification and the necessity of faith would be understood (Rom. 4:15; 5:20; 7:7f.; 8:3; Gal. 3:19).

On the one hand, therefore, the law was subservient to the covenant of grace; it was not a covenant of works in disguise and did not intend that humans would obtain justification by their own works.  On the other hand, its purpose was to lay the groundwork for a higher and better dispensation of that same covenant of grace to come in the fullness of time.  The impossibility of keeping the Sinaitic covenant and of meeting the demands of the law made another and better dispensation of the covenant of grace necessary.”



Serious Error: Strongly Not Recommended

T. David Gordon  2009  The Law is Not of Faith, p. 251.

The Sinai covenant-administration was no bargain for sinners, and I pity the poor Israelites who suffered under its administration, just as I understand perfectly well why seventy-three (nearly half) of their psalms were laments.  I would have resisted this covenant also, had I been there, because such a legal covenant, whose conditions require strict obedience (and threaten severe curse-sanctions), is bound to fail if one of the parties to it is a sinful people.




Related Pages

The Covenant of Grace

The Covenant of Works