# Mosaic Covenant = Republication of Cov't of Works?



## Casey

I am interested in hearing other PB members' thoughts on this topic. I don't consider it a confessional position, and so I don't really consider it Reformed . . . but, some people in the Reformed camp are propogating this idea.

For example, if we look at *WCF 7.3-5*, we read:
3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant _[of works]_, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

5. 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.​Now, on the basis of these sections, it seems obvious that the idea of the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works is clearly not compatible with the _Confession_. So, why do some Reformed theologians nevertheless believe contrary to the _Confession_?


----------



## RamistThomist

Last year, maybe around October, this came up. Peter Gray, I think, had a really good rebuttal to the Repub CoW. Somewhere in the archives...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

If someone says that the Mosaic administration is NOTHING but the CoW republished, then that is improper.

However, it is accurate (and Confessional, see 19.1&2) to recognize that the moral law is no different than the old CoW demand for perfection of life. 19.3 points us to the ceremonies of the Law as the locus of grace instruction under Moses.

Thomas Boston, http://www.covenantofgrace.com/boston_sinai_covenant.htm , also teaches that the CoG is clearly found in the Preamble to the Decalog--"I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Thus, the CoG forms the basis and context for such a "republication."

So, this idea of "republication" cannot be the sole, or even the chief lens, by which to evaluate the character of the Mosaic administration. It was the error of the Pharisees to elevate law-keeping to undue prominence within the Law-administration.

But republication is not _strictly_ improper.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There is a long-ish footnote on this in CJPM, that should be expanded some day. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works. 

I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.

rsc


----------



## Archlute

Herman Witsius has a good exposition of the dual elements of the CoW/CoG as found within the Mosaic economy in his _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_ book 4, chapter 4, sections 47-57. 

Also, Reformed theologians of the past, such as Witsius, Turretin, and Charles Hodge (in his commentary on 1 or 2 Corinthians, I can't remember which at the moment) among others, have seen the Mosaic Covenant as a CoW on the _national level_ with Israel, relating God's blessings in the land to their obedience, and enacting judgment and rejection from the land upon their disobedience.


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> There is a long-ish footnote on this that should be expanded some day in CJPM. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works.
> 
> I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.
> 
> rsc


Can you explain what misunderstanding might be the source of the contemporary hostility, in your opinion? And, how such a view can be reconciled with the _Confession_?


----------



## crhoades

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ogy & Justification/Ligons_covtheology/08.htm

Lig Duncan:

... And for Dispensationalists the Mosaic Covenant is basically a repetition of the Covenant of Works. 

Now Covenant Theologians have described the covenant with Moses differently over the years, and there has been some confusion over the this issue even amongst Reformed Theologians. But in general, while Reformed Theologians acknowledge that there are aspects of the Covenant of Moses or the Covenant of Law, which reflect some of the language and ideas of the Covenant of Works, nevertheless, the Covenant of Law, or the Covenant of Moses, or the Mosaic Economy, is squarely within the stream of the Covenant of Grace. It is not an alternate option to the Covenant of Works given to us by God in the Old Testament It is part of the Covenant of Grace. It is not saying, “Well, okay, if you don’t get saved by faith as under Abraham, you can try law under Moses.” That is not the point.


----------



## Casey

Contra_Mundum said:


> If someone says that the Mosaic administration is NOTHING but the CoW republished, then that is improper.
> 
> However, it is accurate (and Confessional, see 19.1&2) to recognize that the moral law is no different than the old CoW demand for perfection of life. 19.3 points us to the ceremonies of the Law as the locus of grace instruction under Moses.
> 
> Thomas Boston, http://www.covenantofgrace.com/boston_sinai_covenant.htm , also teaches that the CoG is clearly found in the Preamble to the Decalog--"I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Thus, the CoG forms the basis and context for such a "republication."
> 
> So, this idea of "republication" cannot be the sole, or even the chief lens, by which to evaluate the character of the Mosaic administration. It was the error of the Pharisees to elevate law-keeping to undue prominence within the Law-administration.
> 
> But republication is not _strictly_ improper.


Isn't saying "the same law was republished" different from saying "it is a republication of the CoW"?

I mean, following the logic that, since the law itself was published in the Mosaic Covenant it therefore is a republication of the CoW . . well, then even the New Covenant is a republication of the CoW . . ? (Hopefully I'm making myself clear here . . .)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

R. Scott Clark said:


> There is a long-ish footnote on this that should be expanded some day in CJPM. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works.
> 
> I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.
> 
> rsc


----------



## Casey

C. Matthew McMahon said:


>


Care to expand on that?


----------



## MW

In Puritan theology, the moral law promises life upon the fulfilling and threatens death upon the breach of it. So did the covenant of works. Hence some divines taught that the publication of the moral law was a republication of the covenant of works of sorts. However, they always qualified that this republication was subservient to the covenant of grace, and that it was never to be conceived of as a pure administration of works.

There are numerous levels of theological strata involved in this question. Exegetically, there is the typical nature of the Mosaic covenant and of Israel. Likewise, one must settle the question whether the apostle Paul speaks hypothetically, as a polemical answer to Jewish self-justification, or really, indicating that self-justification is held forth as an actual possbility, when in Rom. and Gal. he quotes the demand of the law, Do this and live.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Yes, I think Rev Winzer is quite correct. The doctrine of re-publication was not a way of saying that Israel could be justified by law-keeping. Rather, those who taught re-publication meant to say that, in certain respects, what was promulgated at Sinai is substantially the same as that which was promulgated in the garden, i.e., the moral law and it was republished for similar, but not identical reasons, as it was given in the Garden. 

Adam was under a covenant of works: do and live. He could do and live. He didn't and died and we all with him. 

The law given at Sinai was given after the fall. The Reformed theologians of the 17th century were not Pelagian. They did not move from Adam to us in regard to justification, only in regard to sin.

Thus, it never entered their minds, so far as I know, that anyone could be justified by law-keeping. Rather, by re-publication, they meant to say that the law was imposed on Israel, in part, as way of placing their status in the land or as a national people on a legal footing.

This notion, in turn, was part of the broader Reformed conception of national Israel as a temporary, typical (see WCF 19) arrangement. Republication was bound up with the typological status of Israel. 

The legal basis for Israel's expulsion from the land and their forfeiture of their special status and the national people of God was their failure to obey God.

All of this, however, was subservient to the operation of the covenant of grace which was then identical in substance to the covenant of grace as Abraham knew it and as we know it today.

rsc


----------



## Casey

In saying that the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the CoG and a republication of the CoW, does that make it (for those holding this view) _not_ an administration of the CoG?


----------



## Me Died Blue

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> In saying that the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the CoG and a republication of the CoW, does that make it (for those holding this view) _not_ an administration of the CoG?



I think the point is that the _CoW aspect_ of the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the Mosaic Covenant's _primary essence_ as an administration of the CoG.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> in certain respects, what was promulgated at Sinai is substantially the same as that which was promulgated in the garden, i.e., the moral law and it was republished for similar, but not identical reasons, as it was given in the Garden.



This is the way I understand it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.



Did you just reply to the OP or did you make this statement after reading through this entire thread?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reading what Revs. Buchanan, Clark, and Winzer have written, I'm reminded of Galatians 3:
[KJV]Galatians 3:19-25[/KJV]


> 19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
> 
> 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
> 
> 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
> 
> 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
> 
> 23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
> 
> 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> 
> 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


There is an unmistakable lesson from reading Galatians that the giving of the Law itself has a character distinct from the unbreakable promise that is based completely on faith. "Do this and live..." as noted, is a command that unfallen Adam was unable to achieve. How much more was "Do this and live..." supposed to have driven the fallen man to his knees in recognition that he could not accomplish this? The simple analogy I give is that the Law served as a sort of prison for God's people that ought to have caused them to long for a deliverer. Instead of seeing the prison for what it was, they began to think that they were not in prison at all but had achieved the end. When the door was flung open with Christ, some who had seen their deliverance from afar walked into maturity while others became enamored with their "old home".

In my estimation, both the COW and the Mosaic Law share the same core principle that God's nature is Holy, He is Creator, and we owe Him perfect obedience. Certainly there are unmistakable pictures of Christ in the mediatory work of priests and sacrifices.

It is interesting, is it not, that Paul calls Christ the Second Adam in that He fulfills the COW but repeatedly in his Epistles, he points to the *Law* as the thing accusing us?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Was not God expecting Israel to obey the Law? Did they not say that they would do this, also?

“All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” (Exodus 24.7)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Was not God expecting Israel to obey the Law? Did they not say that they would do this, also?
> 
> “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” (Exodus 24.7)



Yes He did expect Israel to obey the Law. Yes they said they would do so.

It does not change the nature of the case.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> How much more was "Do this and live..." supposed to have driven the fallen man to his knees in recognition that he could not accomplish this? The simple analogy I give is that the Law served as a sort of prison for God's people that ought to have caused them to long for a deliverer. Instead of seeing the prison for what it was, they began to think that they were not in prison at all but had achieved the end. When the door was flung open with Christ, some who had seen their deliverance from afar walked into maturity while others became enamored with their "old home".



Rich, this seems to be you saying that it was impossible for Israel to obey the Law, and that its purpose never involved the possibility of them obeying it at all.


----------



## MW

From an expository viewpoint, Rom. 10:5-8 perhaps provides the clearest linking of the covenant of works with the covenant of grace through Moses. If memory serves correctly, Calvin comes closest to the Puritan view in his commentary on this passage.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Rich, this seems to be you saying that it was impossible for Israel to obey the Law, and that its purpose never involved the possibility of them obeying it at all.



Well, yes, I am saying that it was impossible for them to obey the Law perfectly, hence their need for a Messiah. You asked whether God expected them to obey it and whether they agreed to do so.

That's a different issue.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

SemperFideles said:


> Well, yes, I am saying that it was impossible for them to obey the Law perfectly, hence their need for a Messiah. You asked whether God expected them to obey it and whether they agreed to do so.
> 
> That's a different issue.



But part of keeping the Law involved the expectation that they would fail it. Forgiveness and repentance was provided for from the beginning. Of course no one can obey every jot and tittle of the Law all their life (save from Christ), but this is expected and provided for in sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness, which was in the Law from the beginning...



> “And YHWH heard your words, when you spoke to me. And YHWH said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. *They are right in all that they have spoken.* Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:28-29)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> But part of keeping the Law involved the expectation that they would fail it. Forgiveness and repentance was provided for from the beginning. Of course no one can obey every jot and tittle of the Law all their life (save from Christ), but this is expected and provided for in sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness, which was in the Law from the beginning...



We're not using terms equivalently. Certainly forgiveness and repentance are provided for but it would be improper for a man to claim they have obeyed the statutes contained therein. He can state that his breach of the statutes was atoned for in the sacrifice provided but, even in that, the believer ought to have been looking in hope to a deliverer from the bondage of the Law as Galatians 3 explains.

I actually believe that there is a sense in which the pure logistics of the sacrificial system should have been very instructive to Israel given the frequency with which men sin and the sacrifices provided for it. The number of trips to the sanctuary and the number of animals needed to atone for all their sins would have been crushing indeed.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.



How exactly? 

For what it's worth, not that I know anything, here is the footnote I mentioned earlier. All these guys were "unconfessional"?

Wollebius, Compendium, 1.21.17. It was widely held among the Reformed orthodox that the Decalogue was a republication of the covenant of works. To give but a few examples, John Owen, Herman Witsius, Leonard van Rijssen, Johannes Marckius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston taught it. See Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (1803; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 1,336–337; Leonard van Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae (Amsterdam: 1695.), 89. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 6.85. Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum (Amsterdam, 1749), 345–346; Peter Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 3 vols (Utrecht: 1699), 3.12.23. Pace D. Patrick Ramsey, “In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg,” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2005): 395, Boston appealed to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1. This reading of the confession caused Boston, in his notes in E. F. The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scarsdale, NY: Westminster Discount Books, n.d.), 58, to exclaim, “How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see.” These same theologians also held that Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. The doctrine of unity of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of republication were regarded as complementary not antithetical.


----------



## MW

Well noted, Rich. There was a yearly remembrance of sin in the day of atonement. Heb. 8-10 shows the excellency of the new covenant (which I understand to be a new administration of the covenant of grace) to consist in the fact that God no longer remembers sin, i.e., by requiring continual sacrifices. Sin has been dealt with decisively and finally in the death of the Christ.


----------



## MW

I agree with Prof. Clark's historical comments. However, the interpretation of the Confession cannot be correct, which would define the moral law as delivered upon Mount Sinai as a covenant works. First, because that same moral law forever binds all, as well justified persons as others, sect. 5. Yet it is expressly stated that true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, sect. 6. Secondly, because the Catechisms consider the prologue of the ten commandments as providing the covenantal and redemptive context of obedience to the ten commandments.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

As I said, it's a covenant of works in a very highly restricted sense, relative to the national covenant, as it were, of the Israelites. Not as a matter of justification.



armourbearer said:


> I agree with Prof. Clark's historical comments. However, the interpretation of the Confession cannot be correct, which would define the moral law as delivered upon Mount Sinai as a covenant works. First, because that same moral law forever binds all, as well justified persons as others, sect. 5. Yet it is expressly stated that true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, sect. 6. Secondly, because the Catechisms consider the prologue of the ten commandments as providing the covenantal and redemptive context of obedience to the ten commandments.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> As I said, it's a covenant of works in a very highly restricted sense, relative to the national covenant, as it were, of the Israelites. Not as a matter of justification.



Prof. Clark, I don't doubt your qualification of the doctrine, and I accept it as valid with that qualification. It's your interpretation of WCF 19:2 which is implausible, given what the chapter goes on to say and given the Catechism's emphasis on covenant and redemption in the prologue of the commandments. It is safe to say that the confession is not concerned with the nature of the law as it pertains to national Israel in chap. 19:2, but as it is a republication of the only rule of righteousness to all men.


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> How exactly?
> 
> For what it's worth, not that I know anything, here is the footnote I mentioned earlier. All these guys were "unconfessional"?


Dr. Clark, I went to one of your conferences in IL a few months back. The burden of your lectures was that "Reformed" is objectively defined by the _Confessions_ (not by Reformed theologians _per se_; and this aspect of your lectures I heartily agree with you about). I quoted the Confession above where it states rather clearly that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG, and nowhere in the Confession (and I'm pretty sure the Catechisms, too) does it refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoWs. So, I perfectly understand WrittenFromUtopia's question -- in fact, that's why I started the thread. And I still haven't gotten an answer: How can such a view be considered _confessional_ in the light of the quotation from the Confession in the OP?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

RSC already said this, but you can't read WCF7 as if it isn't a part of the same document as WCF19. The chapters must be harmoniously reckoned, or you might as well toss the whole thing in the rubbish.

Simply put, the WHOLE Mosaic adminstration is nothing but the Covenant of Grace under a specific, typologically heavy form. But the moral law, given what it is essentially, is certainly expressive of the original Covenant of Works. It is in that capacity that Paul can point to it as CURSE, not GRACE. The Israelite people, in particular the mass of non-elect unbelievers, swore to this covenant not as Grace, but as Law. They swear to something they can't accomplish. Least of all can they keep the sacrificial portion!

Moses isn't THE CoW. It's not. Reformed men shouldn't call it so. But any time you see God's commands formally published like that, a summary of his whole will--what is that but a reminder of the original CoW that every man starts out under, and under a curse no less? Jesus went under the CURSE of the LAW. Which LAW? Every expression of the Covenant of Works, that's what, including those reflections of it found in the Mosaic administration. He performed it all perfectly, he obeyed the LAW (of Moses) and in so doing he fulfilled the CoW for us! And then he DIED for us, who hadn't kept the CoW (whether before, during, or after Moses' Law)!

Dispensationalists are WRONG, to assert that Moses IS a works-covenant. And it is just as wrong to go in the opposite direction, and claim that faithfully observing the LAW--as far as possible in deed, and further in ceremonies typifying GRACE--in other words, neo-nomianism: claiming this is grace. *No, Moses is CoG, because it points to Christ.* Do every single thing the Law says, down to the hems of your garments, and the sacrificial oblations exactly; even add none of the Pharisees legalisms, and you will be none the more inside the spiritual CoG _if ye have not faith!_ That is because the person living like that is treating the Law like a CoW! Taking its FORM, and making that the essence.

People do the same thing today! They take God's will (OT or NT or combo) as "Law", and add to it NT church ritual and observances for GRACE, and say "THAT, THERE, THAT is the Covenant of Grace." And in so doing they miss the CoG entirely. It is harder to do TODAY, because the types and shadows THEN functioned like that veil over Moses face. But the fact that people still do it today shows the power and depths of sin.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Reply on the Heidelblog*

Reply here (that's in the indicative not imperative mood!)

rsc



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Dr. Clark, I went to one of your conferences in IL a few months back. The burden of your lectures was that "Reformed" is objectively defined by the _Confessions_ (not by Reformed theologians _per se_; and this aspect of your lectures I heartily agree with you about). I quoted the Confession above where it states rather clearly that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG, and nowhere in the Confession (and I'm pretty sure the Catechisms, too) does it refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoWs. So, I perfectly understand WrittenFromUtopia's question -- in fact, that's why I started the thread. And I still haven't gotten an answer: How can such a view be considered _confessional_ in the light of the quotation from the Confession in the OP?


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> Reply here (that's in the indicative not imperative mood!)
> 
> rsc


Thank you for the long response! -- I look forward to reading it.


----------



## VanVos

Kline is very helpfully here. I agree with Kline that the Mosaic Covenant was a national typological republication of the Covenant of Works that overlaid the underlying substratum of the Covenant of Grace in order to be a school master to bring us to Christ i.e. to make His work legible. Thus making the Law-Gospel distinction clearly discernable within the one unified Covenant of Grace

VanVos


----------



## MW

There is a danger in taking men's thoughts about a subject and running with them in a direction the men never dreamed of.

If it is understood that the Mosaic mediated covenant is typological, then there is nothing amiss with the idea that it did not perfectly reflect the Antitype. Every type must of necessity fall short of the ideal it represents, otherwise the Antitype would be redundant. Where the law of Moses falls short of the grace of Jesus Christ, one may speak of it in antithetical terms, as we read in John 1:17. This antithesis is stressed by the apostle Paul in response to Jewish dependence upon the law of Moses and rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He tells them that Moses looked beyond himself and testified of the righteousness of faith.

Puritan divines have looked at the antithetical gap as described by Paul and have concluded that it must be understood in terms of an inherent difference in law and grace as to the way of salvation. One is saved either by personal law-keeping or by the law-keeping of Another. As the covenant of works represented a way in which man might arrive at blessedness through personal obedience, it was legitimate for these divines to call salvation by personal law-keeping an administration of the covenant of works in contrast to the covenant of grace which stresses the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

When the Puritan idea of a republication of the covenant of works is understood in this context, it can prove helpful, because it clearly delineates law and grace in terms of type and antitype. But when it takes on a life of its own and becomes a hermeneutical crux, it obscures the unified message of Scripture. The fact is, righteousness by works is presented by both Moses and Paul as hypothetical, not real. If it is hypothetical, it is obvious that there was no actual administration of the covenant of works after the fall. God does not enter into hypothetical covenants with people. Hence the idea that the covenant of works was actually republished is untenable. The element of works-righteousness was presented to the people's view to highlight that salvation was all of grace, but they were never taught to seek salvation by their own obedience.

Given this conclusion, Meredith Kline's idea of a national covenant of works is to be rejected. This idea requires the biblical exegete to move from the hypothetical to the real. To suppose that there was a national covenant of works one must conclude that God actually required law-obedience of Israel as a means to merit His blessings. This contradicts the plain message of the Pentateuch, which always insists that Israel owed its existence and blessedness to the chesed of YHWH. It also contradicts the apostle Paul's treatment of the faithfulness of God to His covenant promises in Rom. 9-11, where he explicitly teaches that the promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the election of grace.


----------



## Archlute

Rev. Winzer,

If your thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant are true, what do we make of the stated blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience on a national level found in Deuteronomy, and the subsequent outworking of especially the curses as found in Joshua-Judges? There is a direct correlation to the judgment upon Israel as a nation in those books, and the violations of the covenant expounded in Deuteronomy. This has nothing to do with works righteousness for individual salvation, but rather has to do with the nation's welfare as a whole. I think that Kline's view helps to make much sense of that overarching issue. As well, it is not original to Kline, as noted in earlier posts by myself and Dr. Clark. 

I do not think that we can say that just because an idea is expanded upon by later generations of theologians that it is inherently dangerous. That is exactly what has happened in the history of Doctrine. Ideas regarding the teaching of Scripture begin to formulate, often in response to some error, and then are built upon by later men who have had time to ponder the issue.


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> If your thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant are true, what do we make of the stated blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience on a national level found in Deuteronomy, and the subsequent outworking of especially the curses as found in Joshua-Judges? There is a direct correlation to the judgment upon Israel as a nation in those books, and the violations of the covenant expounded in Deuteronomy. This has nothing to do with works righteousness for individual salvation, but rather has to do with the nation's welfare as a whole. I think that Kline's view helps to make much sense of that overarching issue. As well, it is not original to Kline, as noted in earlier posts by myself and Dr. Clark.



Archlute, on the level of type, Israel were never going to obey and be blessed. Even when they entered into the land through Joshua, they did not enter into rest, Heb. 4. Type by its very nature is hypothetical. If there were a real possibility of obtaining the goal, the Antitype would be unnecessary.

I hope you will not make the sanctions of the covenant a reason for concluding this must have been a covenant of works. Sanctions exist under the full administration of the covenant of grace in the New Testament. He that believeth not is damned is a sanction of the covenant. The warning passages of the book of Hebrews are sanctions.

Concerning your dichotomy between the individual Israelite and the nation as a whole, Rom. 9-11 indicates that the promises will be fulfilled to Israel as a whole by means of the salvation of the individuals who belong to the election of grace. Kline's idea of a failed covenant of works to national Israel inherently contradicts this inspired commentary on the Old Testament. Kline says the word of God has taken none effect. The Holy Spirit says the word of God has not taken none effect.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Israel proves it cannot keep the covenant at the foot of Mt. Sinai! It never kept the covenant, it couldn't keep the covenant. As both Moses and Joshua attest, Israel cannot keep the law they vow to--read the testimonies of both leaders against the nation at the end of both their lives. "For thy mercy's sake we are not consumed!" (Lam. 3:22)

There is no staying in covenant by anything other than by faith, which is why (as RSC states) the whole thing is chiefly a 1500-year sermon illustration. And Matthew is certainly correct to point out that this puts the whole matter into something of a hypothetical. The true, believing Israelites (how many soever there were) surely would say: "We know we are bound to swear to keep this law that we cannot keep. Only by the grace of God are we preserved, in order to renew this covenant."

Even in the people's punctillious observance of ceremonies, the LORD of the Covenant was offended: "My soul hates them!" (Is. 1:14 and the whole passage). But the ceremonies were for the inevitable breaking of the Law! So all the people had to do was follow them, and all would be well? Nonsense. Without faith they were all nothing to purpose. And the nation was destroyed for its wholesale unbelief.

Those entering the Mosaic Covenant _as if it were a covenant of works,_ taking the regulatory FORM of the Covenant for its substance--these were doomed, doomed to fail and to perish and to plunge the nation (since the main did exactly this over many generations) into ruination. For they would certainly be *judged* on the basis of those externals, on a CoW basis.

In the same way, those in the church today, who trust in their works, in their baptism, in their Lord's Supper taking, in their corporate worship attendance, Sabbath observance, you name it! these people are _doomed_ under their pretence of law-keeping. There simply is no comparable CODE for them to appeal to anymore, the massive externality of the Old Covenant having disappeared. But, the irony is (of course) that doesn't stop people from having new codes, even the simplest--like "Love's Law," or the "Two Great Commands." Don't we know people who expect to be judged on those bases in the end? Or on their attendance to NC sacraments and ordinances, all the while crying out "we're under grace, not Law!"


(What I've stated here, in defense of "republication", should be read all together with my previous posts. Men like Boston, whose excerpt I linked to above, represent my view. And I do not defend Kline, apart from defending the terminology. And I really think Dr. Clark and Rev. Winzer are speaking very nearly the same thing, because Clark doesn't defend Kline's views to a "T" either.)


----------



## Irishcat922

Read this it helped me understand the issue much better. Meredith Kline suggested reading on the issue.

Amazon.com: Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Books: Mark Karlberg


----------



## ChristianTrader

Irishcat922 said:


> Read this it helped me understand the issue much better. Meredith Kline suggested reading on the issue.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Reformed-Perspective-Karlberg/dp/1579103154



Free PDF version of same book.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051230152504/www.twoagepress.org/Karlberg.pdf


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


> In the same way, those in the church today...



This is the critical observation and shows the pastoral implications of understanding the issue correctly. The words "in the same way" demonstrate the unity of Israel and the church. It is one covenant of grace. Any differences must be attributed to diversity in administration. The Gospel, like the Law, preaches grace. The Gospel, unlike the Law, preaches a grace that has come into human history through the incarnation of Jesus Christ; whereas the Law always looked forward to the coming of that grace and presented it to the people typically.

At the end of the day, any acknowledgment of a publication of the covenant of works under the Mosaic administration requires us to conclude that the same publication is made in the Gospel -- which is what we discover in Rom. 5. Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Matthew,
I virtually concur with the above sum. The Mosaic administration simply expressed that CoW aspect so "up front" and massively that the regulations (so many, so detailed) seemed to be the substance to so many observers. I think the Reformed, like Boston, speaking of "republication" mean exactly this, and no more. And yet, despite the clarity of the gospel today, many modern observers make exactly the same errors of Israel, with much less.

Yes, we still have Law and Gospel today.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Revs. Buchananan and Winzer: Wow!

Thank you so much for those additions since last night. I came to work this morning and went into a marathon session of meetings that lasted from 0800-1300. The above was very edifying to me. I really wish many could get that last short post by Bruce into their bloodstream today.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Contra_Mundum said:


> (What I've stated here, in defense of "republication", should be read all together with my previous posts. Men like Boston, whose excerpt I linked to above, represent my view. And I do not defend Kline, apart from defending the terminology. And I really think Dr. Clark and Rev. Winzer are speaking very nearly the same thing, because Clark doesn't defend Kline's views to a "T" either.)



What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?



Psalms singers will need to look for new hymns, because all the references to Israel are to a covenant of works which believers are not under. Kline's theory posits a sharp disjunction which cannot be sustained within the reformed concept of the unity of Israel and the church.


----------



## Robin

armourbearer said:


> Psalms singers will need to look for new hymns, because all the references to Israel are to a covenant of works which believers are not under. Kline's theory posits a sharp disjunction which cannot be sustained within the reformed concept of the unity of Israel and the church.



.....Unless, the hymns refer to the works of the TRUE "Israel of God" -- Jesus Christ.

Is the Christian saved by works? (trick question)

YES.

The Christian is saved by the works of Jesus Christ.

Christ's law keeping is imputed to us as we are IN Christ. Related to the Psalms, the "righteous" are those elect in Christ. (Kline's theory is maintained.)

With due respect,

Robin


----------



## Robin

ChristianTrader said:


> What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?
> CT



The benefits of Kline's work help in understanding the distinctions of the different covenants and the importance of keeping them clear. The peril of smudging them together results in things like the Federal Vision.

r.


----------



## MW

Robin said:


> Unless, the hymns refer to the works of the TRUE "Israel of God" -- Jesus Christ.



Ps. 130:8, "And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Israel cannot refer to Jesus Christ. In the Psalms, David is the type of Christ, and Israel is the church. As Ps. 136 testifies over and again, Israel owes its existence and blessedness to the covenant fidelity of YHWH, not to her own works of obedience.

The fact that the Old Testament Scriptures have to be bent every which way to facilitate Kline's theory demonstrates its error.


----------



## turmeric

The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.

I know that's not Scripture, but it's handy.


----------



## Robin

armourbearer said:


> Ps. 130:8, "And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Israel cannot refer to Jesus Christ. In the Psalms, David is the type of Christ, and Israel is the church. As Ps. 136 testifies over and again, Israel owes its existence and blessedness to the covenant fidelity of YHWH, not to her own works of obedience.
> 
> The fact that the Old Testament Scriptures have to be bent every which way to facilitate Kline's theory demonstrates its error.



Rev. Winzer...

Yes, distinctions need to be carefully made. But it can mean BOTH. Afterall, God the Father redeemed Christ from the grave and our iniquities he carried. Remember, Jesus "became sin, who knew no sin?" Btw, Israel was saved the same way we are: through Christ. 

How can it be said "the Lord said to My Lord..." if there isn't overlap in David's typology and Christ's identities? What about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah - who is Israel? Wasn't it Jesus Christ who slew the unbelieving Israelites in the desert (Jude 5?) How can Jesus be Israel and also exact judgment on national Israel? 

It's not about Kline, it's about explaining the fascinating language in the OT where God appears to be talking to himself (in Trinity fashion). Christ is everywhere in the OT. Luke 24 has Jesus teaching the Emmaus disciples the entire OT was about Him.

Yes, there are real historic moments that mattered to real people in the OT. There are also precise types and shadows of God's eschatological "breaking into" human history to act out his decrees that overlay or undergird the events.

It's not either, or....it is both, and.

Calvin knew these points pretty well. (Forget Kline.)

 
r.


----------



## AV1611

R. Scott Clark said:


> There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion.



Could you expand upon this?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

See the Heidelblog entry on this. 

rsc



AV1611 said:


> Could you expand upon this?


----------



## AV1611

R. Scott Clark said:


> See the Heidelblog entry on this.
> 
> rsc



*(1)* I take it that you accept the Mosaic Covenant was a CoW?
*(2)* Did the Mosaic Covenant relate purely to temporal issues which I take is the implication of "It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel's status as the temporary national people of God"?


----------

