The Mosaic covenant is the covenant most easily construed as supporting the idea of covenant being a compact. Thus, the Mosaic covenant has oftentimes been put in contradistinction from the Abrahamic and New Testament covenants. Murray lists three preliminary observations:
- Conditional fulfillment is not only visible in the Mosaic covenant, but is also in the Abrahamic covenant.
- God rescuing Israel out of Egypt was in faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant (Ex. 2:24).
- Relationship is the core of the Mosaic covenant, much like the Abrahamic covenant (Ex. 6:7, Dt. 29:13).
So we should not think that the Mosaic covenant is a sequel to the Abrahamic covenant, but instead that the Mosaic covenant was to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.
The Mosaic covenant is referred to oftentimes with the requirement of God for them to keep it. These references include Exodus 19:5, 6; 24:7, 8). These make it seem as if God needed Israel’s acceptance of the covenant before it could be made. Murray contends this point and references Exodus 19:5:
If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me.
The covenant is ordained by grace, creating a relationship. It is not a conditional agreement in which Israel had to do something before the covenant was “signed.” What keeping the covenant actually does is it will give the blessing that the covenant stipulates. Before blood was shed, the covenant was already in effect, blood being only an outward sign of its establishment. Other verses support this idea of “sovereign appointment”: Ex. 34:27, 28; Lv. 24:8; Nu. 18:19, 25:13).
So how does obedience coincide with a “monergistic administration of grace”?
