# Publication of the Postlapsarian Covenant of Works



## Peairtach (Aug 27, 2012)

Robert Lewis Dabney said this about the status of the Covenant of Works after Adam's transgression:



> The obvious statement is this: The transgression has indeed terminated the sinner’s right to the sanction of reward; but it has not terminated his obligation to obey, nor to the penal sanction.



Is there - rather than a Republication of the Prelapsarian Covenant of Works in Moses- a Publication of the Postlapsarian Covenant of Works in Moses?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 27, 2012)

Read James Durham's little response on this from pages 53 to 55 in his Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments. It is really good. He did mention that we keep building up wrath if we are under the Condemnation of the Covenant of Works. But he did not believe that the Covenant of Works was reconstituted in the Mosaic. That is my brief understanding of it.

Richard,
I am also doing some work on around Galatians 3:17 to Galatians 4:7. I will give you more of a heads up on this later. I do not see any Covenant of Works in this passage. I will explain more later. I do plainly see the whole Mosaic Covenant being referenced. It is kind of reminding me of the book of Hebrews.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 27, 2012)

I think since the CoW, in the sense explained by Dabney, still stands since the Fall, the exposition of the CoW is part of the Gospel and part of the CoG, but the encouragement of people to seek salvation by the CoW is never part of the Gospel.

I don't believe that the people of Israel were encouraged to seek typological Heaven in the Land by a CoW, because, apart from anything else, the type is meant to correspond to the reality, and this would cause spiritual confusion in their hearts and minds.



> The transgression has indeed terminated the sinner’s right to the sanction of reward;


This means that the continued and prosperous tenure in the Land by the Israelites could only be by grace through faith.



> but it has not terminated his obligation to obey,


The moral law which was the (ultimate) moral standard of the CoW was published at Sinai.



> nor to the penal sanction.


The typological penal sanction of the CoW - which would fall on the Israelites collectively in being excluded from the Land, and individually in the peculiar use of the death penalty in Moses - was applied when individuals or the nation neglected God's grace revealed to them in Moses.

The CoW - as explained by Dabney - still stood after the Fall, but could only be picked up by Christ, not by the Israelites, and the Lord didn't instruct the Israelites to pick it up, because it was only hypothetically available to them, being sinners.

We have similar things going on in the New Testament except the types of the childhood Church are removed.



> Richard,
> I am also doing some work on around Galatians 3:17 to Galatians 4:7. I will give you more of a heads up on this later. I do not see any Covenant of Works in this passage. I will explain more later. I do plainly see the whole Mosaic Covenant being referenced. It is kind of reminding me of the book of Hebrews.



I've now read Venema on _The Law is not of Faith_ which was very enlightening. I've never got round to reading the whole of TLNF, but I should sometime DV.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 27, 2012)

Richard,

Here is James Durham on this topic. I will let him speak. 



> Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments
> James Durham
> The Covenant of Works and the Law
> pp. 52-55
> ...


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Aug 27, 2012)

Was the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works for anyone?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 27, 2012)

Rich Barcellos said:


> Was the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works for anyone?



What do you think Rich?


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Aug 28, 2012)

foul, Mr. Moderator!
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, _born under the Law_, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (Gal*4:4-5*NAU). "I am far from thinking that the mount Sinai dispensation was a covenant of works to Israel, as if the design and intention of God therein had been to afford eternal life to Israel upon their own doing; but yet it is called the law, Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 13, 17, even in way of opposition to the promise, verse 12, yea, verse 8, God preached before the gospel to Abraham. Here the covenant with Abraham is expressly called gospel, and that in constradistinction from the very Sinai dispensation, which is called the law; undeniably he speaks of the law, not as given to Adam before the fall, (for then man himself must have been the door for life, and not another for him), but as given at mount Sinai, four hundred and thrity years after that promise to faithful Abraham, verse 17. So that the covenant of grace is rightly distinguished by legal and evangelical, for the Holy Spirit here gives us both parts of the distinction, speaking expressly of that at mount Sinai as one member of it; yea, he makes these so opposite, as he says, verse 12, and the law is not of faith, and so is not the covenant of grace; but yet the Sinai law appertains and refers to it, _viz_. as holding forth the condition thereof to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ." The Mosaic covenant "_n general, ...was a covenant of works, as to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ, but not so to Israel." ~ Samuel Petto. I agree with Petto._


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Aug 28, 2012)

Concerning Dabney's statement, praise God that Christ was no sinner and earned the reward of eschatological life for us as the only other public person possible who could have earned such! In Adam, all die. In Christ, all shall be made alive.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2012)

FOUL? LOL. You are too sensitive you Joker! BTW, you are older than I am. Maybe I should listen to my Elders? 

Sorry I am so slow getting back to you. I slept in today. Aint done that in a while. My mind is fresh old man. BEWARE! LOL!!!!

I think James Durham addressed what the law was in the above statement and why it wasn't, "a Covenant of Works," in the Mosaic. 

I am going to deal with the passages you quote above in more depth soon (but don't have it done yet). I have with some of them as Roman's 10:5 and Leviticus 18:5. I believe Paul is addressing how the Israelites turned the law into something it wasn't intended on being. As I have noted in a few places, "we can turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works if we wanted to even when that is the farthest thing from God's mind." I believe St. Paul is addressing two issues concerning the law and in the broader context reveals that the law exposes the Gospel. Even Jesus and the author of Hebrews states that the gospel was preached in the Mosaic Covenant. 

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? 

(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard _it._
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 




Rich Barcellos said:


> "I am far from thinking that the mount Sinai dispensation was a covenant of works to Israel, as if the design and intention of God therein had been to afford eternal life to Israel upon their own doing; but yet it is called the law, Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 13, 17, *even in way of opposition to the promise*, verse 12, yea, verse 8, God preached before the gospel to Abraham. - Samuel Petto



Yes, the Law used as a legal means to obtain a right to something can be considered here. That is precisely the problem that St. Paul is confronting. When the Law is used outside of faith it becomes a task master. But the Law in context with this passage was to be more than something that can dissannul. The following passages reveal this. It is a schoolmaster that was to take the Israelite's somewhere. God gave them circumcision as a sign of His Covenant of Grace toward them. They turned it into an instrument by which something was appropriated instead of a sign and seal of the promises annexed to it. They turned obedience to perform duties into something it wasn't intended to do. Performing duties is good. But the motivation behind those duties can make them null and void. Thus, they did exactly what the law (The Mosaic) in it's function here was not intended to do. They used it in a way that was opposing God's purpose. God's purpose was to make it a schoolmaster that took them to faith by shadows in light of reality. In all reality the Gospel is not opposed to the law or the law opposed to the Gospel. How we use the law is. In fact we are being conformed back into the image that will have us being restored fully into sinless creatures that will reflect the law perfectly again. The Gospel is bringing us back by faith into being what we are going to be. I agree that the law cannot dissannul the promises. But the condemnation that the Covenant revealed was in effect from Adam. Not from the Mosaic. The Mosaic is only something that reveals that Covenant and taught by shadows faith in propitiation and expiation. 

*The Law is not in opposition** to the Gospel and the Gospel establishes the law (Galatians 3.:21 and Romans 3:31)* . The Law being in opposition to the Gospel is something that is being presented way too much now days. This is bad thinking in my estimation and an over reaction to the opposite end of the problem presented here in the Galatians (and Hebrews) situation. And NO! I am not a neonomist. The Galatians were being coaxed to turn to circumcision (which is the context of this letter) for justification before God. Fulfilling the rights of passage were being touted as the way one gained favor with God instead of by faith. As I noted above, "Even we can turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works." The Church through the centuries has done this with Baptism also. Same situation, different ordinance. The Law being referenced here is not just the Decalogue but the (over 600) commands of ordinances and regulations that were imposed upon the Israelite's. Circumcision being included in that group and the main contention of this letter. 

I disagree with Petto and those of his vein of thought now. The Law was intended to be a schoolmaster and it is not in opposition or against the gospel as noted in Galatians. The way the Israelites were using it was. It wasn't intended to do that. The carnal mind just is opposed to faith and submission to the Person and Work of Christ. And Paul is trying to show the real purpose of that Law. 

I discuss the Leviticus 18:5 and Romans 10:5 passages in context with something that Patrick Ramsey wrote. I will post Ramsey and if anyone desires they can read my blog comments also in the following link. 


> *Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5
> Pastor Patrick Ramsey
> 
> The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.
> ...



The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? - Blogs - The PuritanBoard



> (Gal 3:11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
> 
> (Gal 3:12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
> 
> ...






> (Rom 3:27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
> 
> 
> (Rom 3:28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> ...


I am raising more questions and making statements about the Mosaic Covenant and this topic over here. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/galatians-4-24-two-covenants-question-what-they-75700/#post963904


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 28, 2012)

I agree that no-man can be saved by keeping the CoW, and that there was no confusing typological lesson for the children of Israel about prosperous tenure in the land being obtained by works, but rather by grace producing faith producing works which were in turn graciously rewarded.

But if we go to a lost eternity it is because of breaking the Covenant of Works, and if we have been in the administration of the CoG and have neglected that grace, this just exaggerates our sin of breaking the CoW (?)

Was this presented in a special way to the Israelites?

The CoG involves a gracious presentation of the post-Fall status of the CoW in order to lead people to Christ.

(a) The moral law has to be presented.

(b) The hypothetical nature of the CoW for almost all men -apart from Christ - has to be presented.

(c) The penalty for sin (breaking the CoW) has to be presented in the CoG.

How was this done under Moses, and how is is this done in the NT?

This may be the door that the Republicationists are knocking on in an erroneous manner (?)


----------

