# Dabney on the broken Covenant of Works



## Peairtach (Dec 26, 2011)

Dabney discusses in his _Systematics_ in what sense the CoW has been abrogated since Adam's Fall:



> 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.
> 
> This last remark shows us, in what sense the covenant of works was abriogated when Adam fell - and this is obviously the sense of Paul. The proposal of life by the law is at an end for the fallen; they have forever disabled themselves for acquiring, under the law, the sanction of reward by their own works. Hence, God in His mercy, withdraws that covenant so far as it is a dispensation for that result; and He substitutes for all who are in Christ, the covenant of grace. Compare Gal. v:3; iii:10 ; Matt. v: 18; Rom vi:14,15. (page 637)



Dabney clarifies, in my mind at least, the senses in which sinners are still subject to the CoW and therefore also indicates in what senses the CoW could have been, or was, "Republished" at Sinai. 

(a)The moral law was republished - summarised in the Ten Commandments. 

(b) The curse of the law or penal sanction was republished, in various typological arrangements, including aspects of the criminal and penal code, and the threat of the Israelites being cast out of the Land.

(c) But the CoW as a means of staying in and prospering in the Land was not republished but remained hypothetical. The only means of staying in and prospering in the Land was by faith through grace. Staying in and prospering in the land was typological of the gracious rewards which the Lord promises to His people for imperfect but real good works.

For Christ the CoW was not hypothetical.

I'll point out what Dabney explicitly says about Republicationism on another thread.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 27, 2011)

Thanks for this, Richard.

Good stuff.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 27, 2011)

Could we have the link to the other thread?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 28, 2011)

The requirement of the Covenant of Works is personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the Moral Law of God, and other positive laws. So, Richard, I agree that Israel through obedience could never have merited staying in the land. The concern I have with some republicationist theories is the penchant for requiring obedience of a relative kind, when the Covenant of Works requires perfection.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Dec 28, 2011)

Very helpful, thanks


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 28, 2011)

*Eric*


> Very helpful, thanks



Well you can thank Dr Dabney, a truly great American.

*Todd*


> The concern I have with some republicationist theories is the penchant for requiring obedience of a relative kind, when the Covenant of Works requires perfection.



The Republicationists are positing a post-Fall, real _not hypothetical_, republication of the CoW, which leads to confusion and also logical anomalies. _It's in the CoG not the CoW_ that the Lord graciously accepts and rewards sincere but imperfect good works for Christ's sake.

Post-Fall the CoW is completely hypothetical as a way of salvation for sinners, but not for Christ in representing His people.

*Ben*


> Could we have the link to the other thread?


Dabney deals with Republicationism specifically on pp 452-463 of his _Systematic Theology_ which is online somewhere. 

He's against Republicationism, although maybe someone could help explain what he means here:-



> The French divines, Camero and Amgraut [_sic_, should be Cameron and Amyraut], proposed an ingenious modification of the legal theory of Moses' covenant: That in it a certain kind of life was proposed (as in the Covenant of Works) as a reward for exact obedience: But that the life was temporal, in a prosperous Canaan, and the obedience was ritual. This is true, so far as a visible church-standing turned on a ritual obedience. But to the Hebrew, that temporal life in happy Canaan was a type of heaven; which was not promised to an exact moral obedience, but to faith. Were this theory modified, so as to represent this dependence of the Hebrew's church standing on his ritual obedience, as a mere type and emblem of the law's spiritual work as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," it might stand.(p 453)


----------



## non dignus (Dec 28, 2011)

From Berkhof, _Systematic Theology_, p. 268,

the chapter heading, 

The Covenant of Redemption

"*2. The Character This Covenant Assumed For Christ. *Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and, as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For Him the law of the original covenant applied, namely, that eternal life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedienece, and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what He has done as the Representative and Surety of all His people, they are no more in duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits of Christ's accomplished work through grace.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 28, 2011)

Christ had to kept the law as a CoW for us, but the Israelites were never encouraged to keep the law as a CoW, even to remain and prosper in the Land. The Lord wanted them to produce good works through faith in the promised Saviour, not of their own accord.



> For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.(Rom 10:10)



Salvation not only includes being made right with God, but also the production of good works (sanctification). This was true under the Mosaic economy, just as much as under the Christian economy.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 28, 2011)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> The requirement of the Covenant of Works is personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the Moral Law of God, and other positive laws. So, Richard, I agree that Israel through obedience could never have merited staying in the land. The concern I have with some republicationist theories is the penchant for requiring obedience of a relative kind, when the Covenant of Works requires perfection.



Michael Horton argues in his book, _God of Promise_, that _"...the purpose of the Jewish theocracy (i.e. the old covenant) was to point forward through types to the coming Messiah. But how could God maintain a typological kingdom that kept the focus of future anticipation of Christ if that kingdom's existence depended at every moment on obedience?"_

As Kline put it, the nation's part was an _"appropriate measure of national fidelity" ....enough covenantal obedience was necessary to keep the typology legible serving its purpose of directing attention to the true and lasting kingdom of God that it prefigured._

In this way, the covenant remains a truely graceful covenant while functioning *in part *as a conditional, bilateral suzerainty treaty, a covenant of works.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 28, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> Christ had to kept the law as a CoW for us, but the Israelites were never encouraged to keep the law as a CoW, even to remain and prosper in the Land. The Lord wanted them to produce good works through faith in the promised Saviour, not of their own accord....Salvation not only includes being made right with God, but also the production of good works (sanctification). This was true under the Mosaic economy, just as much as under the Christian economy.



I largely agree. But we have to be careful in terms. The republicationist is arguing that the Mosaic Covenant was functioning on more than one level. There was an individual and household level, but also a temporary national and political level. 

Would the eternal aspect of the covenant of grace really pertain to saving Israel's national attributes? to saving Israel's temporary religio/politicalness? For what? It's typological. Or would there be a twofold aspect to the covenant corresponding to Israel's eternal destiny and her earthly destiny?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

Was Israel just a typological Kingdom? I am not so sure that is true. They were as much a part of the true Church as we are. Individual obedience and obedience community wise also is the same. Remember we are grafted into her. She wasn't removed and a totally new thing done. If a person or the community were overtly sinful there were consequences. The same is true of the New Covenant. And it is by grace that this is true. I am growing ever more convinced that Kline and Horton are more dispensational in their outlook then some want to admit. The Mosaic and New Covenant are the same in substance. The Church is also considered to be a Nation and God deals with area Churches the same way he dealt with Israel or the threatenings in Revelation 2 wouldn't have been proclaimed.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 29, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Was Israel just a typological Kingdom? I am not so sure that is true. They were as much a part of the true Church as we are.



Yes, absolutely. But Israel is the church under a pedagogue. "We" were being trained in righteousness. "We" were alloted a little piece of real estate in Canaan, as sons of Abraham. But Abraham shall inherit the earth. The church is growing in stages. The law had to do its job. 



> Individual obedience and obedience community-wise also is the same.


 OK. But was it exactly the same? I don't think so.




> Remember we are grafted into her. She wasn't removed and a totally new thing done. If a person or the community were overtly sinful there were consequences. The same is true of the New Covenant. And it is by grace that this is true.


 Absolutely true.




> I am growing ever more convinced that Kline and Horton are more dispensational in their outlook then some want to admit. The Mosaic and New Covenant are the same in substance.



They have the same substance but different forms. They say one is bilateral and one is grant. Do you see that difference?




> The Church is also considered to be a Nation and God deals with area Churches the same way he dealt with Israel or the threatenings in Revelation 2 wouldn't have been proclaimed.



We are a nation like no other. Our nationness defies any earthly explanation. Israel was defined by earthly things: land, statutes, armies etc. (By the way, Kline saw connection between the pillar of fire in Exodus and Christ standing among the lampstands.) Christ has come in Spirit and Truth. That is, no more in types and shadows. 

We take the Supper now, but when He comes we will cease. The Supper is not meant to be saved eternally. It has a particular purpose in the earth. So it is I think with Israel's nationhood. The people are redeemed, not the national apparatus. The civic apparatus and obedience thereby was purposed to serve as a probation with rewards and punishments. This narrowly defined is not grace. This is works. This is toward national status, not individual status. 

Frankly, we see the same apostasy today in the church as we saw in Israel. I'm looking at Revelation in a whole new way. The outward visible church is the whore of Babylon and she is in big trouble. People outside the apostate church are just crumbs getting scooped up in the main action of God vindicating His holy name on those who vainly use it. So yes, the new covenant contains curses as well as blessings. But it is a covenant of grant.


----------



## Loopie (Dec 29, 2011)

To PuritanCovenanter:

I would say that in one sense Israel was a typological kingdom. Of course I would also say that the true church was contained within Israel. If by 'true church' we mean God's Elect, the spiritual children of Abraham, then it would be hard to say that ALL of Israel was the 'true church'. The true church existed within national Israel, and this is the church that we as Gentiles are grafted into. We were not grafted into physical/national Israel, but spiritual Israel (those physical descendants of Abraham that were of the Elect).

When it comes to saying that the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same in substance, I cannot agree or disagree without some further clarity as to what we mean by 'substance'. It really does depend on the definition of the term (which can vary slightly from one theologian to another). What I would say though is that the New Covenant is a better covenant, with a better mediator. It is also a perfect and an inviolable covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34:

"'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,' declares the Lord.
'But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'
'They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' declares the Lord, 'for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.'"


----------



## non dignus (Dec 29, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> (c) But the CoW as a means of staying in and prospering in the Land was not republished but remained hypothetical. The only means of staying in and prospering in the Land was by faith through grace.



Richard,
Could you elaborate on how the CoW remainded hypothetical? Do you mean it was an abstract concept, law generally considered? 



> Staying in and prospering in the land was typological of the gracious rewards which the Lord promises to His people for imperfect but real good works.



Sure, why not. I love the typologies! I believe covenant obedience undertaken by Israel is a type of Christ's active and passive obedience. Christ is the true Israel.



> For Christ the CoW was not hypothetical.



How so?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Was Israel just a typological Kingdom? I am not so sure that is true. They were as much a part of the true Church as we are.
> ...


I don't believe that it is just a typological Kingdom. It is both as a shadow and something that consists of the true Kingdom. It is both. 


non dignus said:


> > Individual obedience and obedience community-wise also is the same.
> 
> 
> OK. But was it exactly the same? I don't think so.



I do believe it is the same nature wise. 



non dignus said:


> > Remember we are grafted into her. She wasn't removed and a totally new thing done. If a person or the community were overtly sinful there were consequences. The same is true of the New Covenant. And it is by grace that this is true.
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.





non dignus said:


> > I am growing ever more convinced that Kline and Horton are more dispensational in their outlook then some want to admit. The Mosaic and New Covenant are the same in substance.
> 
> 
> 
> They have the same substance but different forms. They say one is bilateral and one is grant. Do you see that difference?


As the confession notes it is the same covenant of grace being administered differently. 



> WCF Chapter VII Section V.—This covenant 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 fore-signifying 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.



I will look at your last of your comment and respond a bit later.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

Loopie said:


> To PuritanCovenanter:
> 
> I would say that in one sense Israel was a typological kingdom. Of course I would also say that the true church was contained within Israel. If by 'true church' we mean God's Elect, the spiritual children of Abraham, then it would be hard to say that ALL of Israel was the 'true church'. The true church existed within national Israel, and this is the church that we as Gentiles are grafted into. We were not grafted into physical/national Israel, but spiritual Israel (those physical descendants of Abraham that were of the Elect).
> 
> ...



I agree with most of what you are saying here Eric. I would also encourage you to look at a few other things. Jeremiah 31 has been discussed a lot here and one of my problems with how people view it is that they don't read it in the full context of Jeremiah. For example a lot of guys just jump on this passage about teaching. If you want to understand the passage one also needs to read it with its exposition in Jeremiah 32 and in light of what aspect teaching has to do with the different administrations of the Covenants. I think Reverend Winzer does a bang up job discussing it and I made a blog entry about it. If you want to know what is being said I recommend you check this blog entry out. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/what-new-new-covenant-719/



> > Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> >
> > Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> The civic apparatus and obedience thereby was purposed to serve as a probation with rewards and punishments. This narrowly defined is not grace. This is works. This is toward national status, not individual status.



Where do you conclude that this was a probation with rewards and punishment? Is this not true for us who are in the New Covenant as per our standing as a Church under the Kingship of Christ. As it says in (Gal 6:7) "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." While it may have shadow and fulfillment the same substance is in both Covenants. I think I have noted in this in many places. There are references to Church discipline individually and nationally in both Covenants. I really do see this in the New Covenant by Paul's warnings and Christ's proclamations in Revelation chapter 2. 



non dignus said:


> Frankly, we see the same apostasy today in the church as we saw in Israel. I'm looking at Revelation in a whole new way. The outward visible church is the whore of Babylon and she is in big trouble. People outside the apostate church are just crumbs getting scooped up in the main action of God vindicating His holy name on those who vainly use it. So yes, the new covenant contains curses as well as blessings. But it is a covenant of grant.


I don't understand your 'covenant of grant' comment. And I am a bit confused by your conclusion that the Church is the Whore of Babylon. The gates of Hell shall not prevail Jesus said. And it is purely filled with grace with discipline. Discipline is gracious.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 29, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Individual obedience and obedience community-wise also is the same.
> 
> 
> > OK. But was it exactly the same? I don't think so.
> ...




Well, obedience is obedience. But let's say that 999,998 people out of a million fulfilled the law perfectly in Israel. But two did not. Would it be constructive to completely halt everything because of two people? Achan messed things up in Ai in the book of Joshua, and it was serious, but it didn't halt the progress of redemptive history. This, I think, illustrates the idea of imperfect obedience on the part of the nation being adequate. Or at least there being provision in the covenant for imperfect obedience (sacrifice?)




> As the confession notes it is the same covenant of grace being administered differently.



Agreed. Different form, same substance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> Well, obedience is obedience. But let's say that 999,998 people out of a million fulfilled the law perfectly in Israel. But two did not. Would it be constructive to completely halt everything because of two people? Achan messed things up in Ai in the book of Joshua, and it was serious, but it didn't halt the progress of redemptive history. This, I think, illustrates the idea of imperfect obedience on the part of the nation being adequate. Or at least there being provision in the covenant for imperfect obedience (sacrifice?)



I guess I am not understanding your hypothetical here and how it matters. For one thing your hypothetical is an impossibility. Even in the case with Achen it didn't stop any progress in the history of redemption. In fact from the perspective of sanctification it sure put an emphasis on it.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 29, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Where do you conclude that this was a probation with rewards and punishment?



One example is the 5th commandment. Added to the requirement to honor parents is the caveat that one may live long in the land. The caveat is particular to the OT, and implies that ones life will be shortened in the land if the commandment is broken. No such caveat is found in the NT. Same substance (honor parents), different form (landholding is absent)




> There are references to Church discipline individually and nationally in both Covenants. I really do see this in the New Covenant by Paul's warnings and Christ's proclamations in Revelation chapter 2.



Sure. But the entire church cannot be exiled in the same fashion as Israel. How do you see national discipline in the NT?




> I don't understand your 'covenant of grant' comment. And I am a bit confused by your conclusion that the Church is the Whore of Babylon. The gates of Hell shall not prevail Jesus said. And it is purely filled with grace with discipline. Discipline is gracious.



'Grant' meaning 'gift'. An inheritance is a grant. Testament is a grant for no other reason that Someone died (and rose again). 

A bilateral treaty is different. In it the land was not granted to Israel unconditionally. It could not be polluted with blood for example. Breaking the 'lease' caused them to be exiled. 

Largely the christian church today is only nominally christian. 'They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.' This 'church' is given over to the world, and is preaching another gospel. This is the harlot. But there is a remnant that He will preserve. The true churches are despised by the false churches. It's pretty much the same today as in the last days of Israel. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord. Those who take His name should think twice.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> I guess I am not understanding your hypothetical here and how it matters. For one thing your hypothetical is an impossibility. Even in the case with Achen it didn't stop any progress in the history of redemption. In fact from the perspective of sanctification it sure put an emphasis on it.



I'm guessing the requirement of perfect obedience in a CoW is the main argument against the Mosaic Covenant being one. My hypothetical was meant to point out that perfect adherence to anything by a very large group of people would be impossible. But only two out of a million is darn good. But not good enough according to republication naysayers.)

Is a probationary test meaningless if approximate obedience is accomplished? No, I think not. The point was certainly made that man cannot keep the law, and even more so when only approximate adherence was acceptable.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> > Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter
> > Where do you conclude that this was a probation with rewards and punishment?
> 
> 
> One example is the 5th commandment. Added to the requirement to honor parents is the caveat that one may live long in the land. The caveat is particular to the OT, and implies that ones life will be shortened in the land if the commandment is broken. No such caveat is found in the NT. Same substance (honor parents), different form (landholding is absent)



I believe St. Paul actually gives the meaning of the text you are referencing. 



> (Eph 6:1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
> 
> (Eph 6:2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
> 
> ...



It had to do with dwelling in the Covenant Community. The Land like the Church are similar. The substance is the same. I don't see anything as a probation status here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> There are references to Church discipline individually and nationally in both Covenants. I really do see this in the New Covenant by Paul's warnings and Christ's proclamations in Revelation chapter 2.
> Sure. But the entire church cannot be exiled in the same fashion as Israel. How do you see national discipline in the NT?



The Nation of Isreal as a Church had a split and God dealt with them individually. So it is with the different geographical churches in Revelation 2. This can also be experienced from congregation to congregation in my estimation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2011)

non dignus said:


> > Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter
> > I guess I am not understanding your hypothetical here and how it matters. For one thing your hypothetical is an impossibility. Even in the case with Achen it didn't stop any progress in the history of redemption. In fact from the perspective of sanctification it sure put an emphasis on it.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think that is the only problem with the Republication issue. Sure that is one. The other has to do with how God chastised them instead of a once for all. The Covenant of Works was a covenant that was set up and demanded perfect obedience as you noted. The Mosaic had repentance and forgiveness instituted in it and after Israel's refusal to repent God chastised them and brought them back. That doesn't resemble anything like the Covenant of Works. In fact it looks exactly like something that the Covenant of Grace administers which is not even remotely close to the Covenant of Works. Sure the same Law is used. But that Law existed in God's nature before the covenant of Works and it will exist way past on into Eternity because it is reflective of God's Character.


----------



## MW (Dec 29, 2011)

Historical reformed theology taught the covenant of works appointed a representative head, Adam, who was placed on probation for himself and his posterity, and his fall issued in the condemnation of all who should descend from him by ordinary generation. The children of Adam are reckoned sinners by the immediate imputation of Adam's sin; they were not made sinners by their own probation and fall.

The republication scheme allows a personal probation for Israel under the covenant of works, and thereby undermines the universal representative principle which is so pronounced in traditional reformed covenant theology. Says Kline, "The old covenant was law, the opposite of grace-faith, and in the postlapsarian world that meant it would turn out to be an administration of condemnation as a consequence of sinful Israel's failure to maintain the necessary meritorious obedience." He regarded Israel as undergoing its own probation, and falling in its own person, under a republished covenant of works. It was only on the basis of this personal fall of Israel that he could insist on the conclusion that the covenant made with Israel was one of works in contrast to grace: "A satisfactory explanation of Israel's fall demands works, not grace, as the controlling administrative principle." -- Meredith G. Kline, 'Answering Objections to the Covenant of Works,' in Kingdom Prologue, pp. 107-17. Available here: The Upper Register: Papers and mp3's by Lee Irons

Here, then, is another serious departure which the modern republication theory makes from traditional reformed covenant theology. Whereas traditional reformed theology taught the universal nature of Adam's representation issuing in the condemnation of all men in him, the modern republication scheme makes Israel undergo its own probation and fall into condemnation.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe St. Paul actually gives the meaning of the text you are referencing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you. I stand corrected.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 30, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> The only means of staying in and prospering in the Land was by faith through grace.



(Just to add a small remark, as I read it the other day -- if I'm grasping correctly, this would seem to be supported by passages like Isaiah 7.)


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter;919754. said:


> I don't think that is the only problem with the Republication issue. Sure that is one. The other has to do with how God chastised them instead of a once for all. The Covenant of Works was a covenant that was set up and demanded perfect obedience as you noted. The Mosaic had repentance and forgiveness instituted in it and after Israel's refusal to repent God chastised them and brought them back. That doesn't resemble anything like the Covenant of Works. In fact it looks exactly like something that the Covenant of Grace administers which is not even remotely close to the Covenant of Works. Sure the same Law is used. But that Law existed in God's nature before the covenant of Works and it will exist way past on into Eternity because it is reflective of God's Character.



I must say I am seeing more of the graciousness of the Mosaic ecomony than before. I guess I was more influenced early on by dispensationalism than I knew. That being said, I'm still not convinced that 'the law' had no intention at all similar to a covenant of works in a narrowly defined goal. 

Would you concede that the law, _abstractly considered_, was meant for, and actually condemned sinners? Voila! If the parts and parties of a covenant are in place one has a de facto covenant. That Israel was punished cannot be denied. Grace, on the other hand, punishes Another.
Thus Sinai was a complex covenant.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The republication scheme allows a personal probation for Israel under the covenant of works, and thereby undermines the universal representative principle which is so pronounced in traditional reformed covenant theology.....



Rev. Winzer,
It is good to chat with you again.

I'm not seeing how the CoW principle undermines the universal representative principle. Could you elaborate? Paul said in the last verse of Romans 3, "..on the contrary we establish the law." If I understand that correctly, the law is in place as a standard of righteousness for Christ to fulfill as the last Adam. Thus is some sense there was in place a re-enactment of Eden in the new Eden, land of milk and honey.

Thus temporily, not for eternal justification, Israel My son, is the type of Christ undergoing and failing probation, whereas Christ as the last Adam does not fail.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 30, 2011)

Elder Cronkrite. I would affirm to what the Reformed faith held to concerning the law in the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic. Obedience to it is God's will for everyone's life. The Moral Law is used in the Covenant of Works. It is not necessarily bound to it as originating in it. God used the Law in that Covenant but it is above the Covenant of Works in that it is wrapped up in God's character. We are still bound to this law no matter what condition we are found in. 

Chapter 16
VII. Works done by unregenerate men, *although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others*; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. *And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.

chapter 19
*II. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

V. The moral law *doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof*; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; *discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives*; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. *It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them,* although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. *The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works:* so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

I don't think the Mosaic condemns men any more than the pronouncement of the failure of Adam's sin. Everyone stands condemned in Adam. But to republish the moral law (not reinstate the Covenant of Works) by revelation over and over is necessary for us and the unregenerate so that we might not forget who we are and what we are. We are so prone to be like the man described in James. 



> (Jas 1:23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
> 
> (Jas 1:24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
> 
> ...



Also note that the Law is called the Law of Liberty. It is meant to set us free as it is bound up in Christ. It serves a wonderful purpose in shining forth God's character and Holiness and how we are to be loving and fulfilling it in the Spirit. 

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:


(Rom 8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


(Rom 8:5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit...


(Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


(Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


(Rom 13:10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 30, 2011)

One more thought Elder Conkrite. It seems the passage you are referring to in Romans has a context. Romans 2-4 is very explicit concerning the law and justification. Even though circumcision is spoken of in the concept of law keeping, the truth of it is revealed in what it's purpose was in Abraham. The Jews were turning it into something it wasn't as I have noted in many other places concerning how they were trying to use the law to justify themselves. The law will always pronounce condemnation since all men are condemned in Adam. But faith in the promises of God release us from that condemnation as the sign and seal testify to this fact. By grace that law chases and goads us to Christ. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2011)

non dignus said:


> I'm not seeing how the CoW principle undermines the universal representative principle. Could you elaborate? Paul said in the last verse of Romans 3, "..on the contrary we establish the law." If I understand that correctly, the law is in place as a standard of righteousness for Christ to fulfill as the last Adam. Thus is some sense there was in place a re-enactment of Eden in the new Eden, land of milk and honey.
> 
> Thus temporily, not for eternal justification, Israel My son, is the type of Christ undergoing and failing probation, whereas Christ as the last Adam does not fail.



The representative principle is that all mankind underwent their probation and fall in Adam. The republication theory, according to Kline, seeks to prove that Israel was under a covenant of works on the basis that Israel underwent its own probation and fall. The republication theory, thereby, undermines the universal representation of Adam. Now, if you would like to revise Kline's method of argumentation, and revert to a national probation that is _different in nature_ to Adam's probation, then you are free to do so, but then you would not be holding to the modern republication theory. A different kind of probation would lead to a different kind of covenantal arrangement, and that would only serve to undermine the idea that "the covenant of works" was republished.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 30, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The representative principle is that all mankind underwent their probation and fall in Adam. The republication theory, according to Kline, seeks to prove that Israel was under a covenant of works on the basis that Israel underwent its own probation and fall.



Yes, if Kline were teaching that Israel's probation in the Mosaic Covenant were a substitute for the original CoW, I would be aghast. Am I following you?

I didn't read Kline that way. I do absolutely see a different kind.
I do see 1) a probation that is not to the individual but is collective towards national obedience, and bears on the status of the nation as a whole. 
2) a difference in that Israel's failure would not be universal and not cross over to other nations' status. 
3) a difference where Adam's failure had eternal consequences, while Israel's failure only meant eviction from the land with accompanying horrors.




> A different kind of probation would lead to a different kind of covenantal arrangement, and that would only serve to undermine the idea that "the covenant of works" was republished.



Yes, I see. In that case I would be happy to support the doctrine of a different covenant arrangement. Perhaps you might offer an idea along those lines? The distinction would help me see the error of a more pristine CoW arrangement. Thanks.


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2011)

non dignus said:


> Yes, I see. In that case I would be happy to support the doctrine of a different covenant arrangement. Perhaps you might offer an idea along those lines? The distinction would help me see the error of a more pristine CoW arrangement. Thanks.



There are two covenants -- works and grace. If the covenant with Israel was not a covenant of works the only alternative left to us in seeking a different covenant arrangement is the covenant of grace.

We do not need to go the length of Kline in order to validate the elements which have the appearance of works in the covenant with Israel. It suffices to say, with the reformed tradition, that certain elements of the covenant of works were republished in subordination to the covenant of grace. Not that this makes it an altogether unique covenant arrangement because the same elements are promulgated in the gospel, as Romans 2 teaches. The fact is that man was created under a moral order, and every administration of divine providence operates in accord with this order. The modern theory of republication partially chooses when to maximise that moral order and when to minimise it. In doing so it does not rightly divide the word of truth.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 31, 2011)

Thank you, Rev. Winzer.

That makes sense. This has been really good for me. Randy's contributions helped me to look at the OT ad NT as more similar than I had previously known. I'm certain now that dispensationalism had warped my early impressions of the Mosaic Covenant.

Thanks again.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2011)

But, for your reference, Mr. Cronkhite, these are not the only options within the reformed tradition. Our own William Pemble takes a middle ground, as does Herman Witsius. 

"...In all these periods of time, (ie. from Adam to the end of the world), the grace of God that brings salvation to man was ever one and the same; only the revelation thereof was with much variety of circumstances, as God considered it agreeable to every season...But, notwithstanding this or any other diversity in circumstance, the substance of the gospel or covenant of grace is but one and the same throughout all ages, namely Jesus Christ, yesterday and today and the same forever...
...by the covenant of works we understand that which we call the law, namely that means of bringing man to salvation which is by perfect obedience to the will of God. Hereof there are also two separate administrations. The first is with Adam before his fall, when immortality and happiness were promised to man and confirmed by an external symbol of the tree of life, upon the condition that he continued obedient to God, as well in all other things as in that particular commandment of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The second administration of this covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, where (after the light of nature had begun to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue, as first engraved on man's heart) God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God and his neighbor, expressed in the Decalogue. According to the tenor of this law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness upon condition that they would be His people, obeying all things that He had commanded. This condition they accepted, promising an absolute obedience: 'All things which the Lord hath said, we will do' (Exodus 19:8). And they also submitted themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed, saying 'Amen' to the curse of the law: 'Cursed be everyone that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them; and all the people shall say, 'Amen'" (Deuteronomy 27:26). - _The Justification of a Sinner_, William Pemble, p.156-158.

"What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror of which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both. Hence the question, which is very much agitated at this day, may be decided: namely, Whether the ten words are nothing but the form of the covenant of grace? This, I apprehend, is by no means an accurate way of speaking., For, since a covenant strictly so called, consists in a mutual agreement, what is properly the form of the covenant should contain the said mutual agreement. But the ten words contain only a prescription of duty fenced on the one band by threatenings, taken from the covenant of works; on the other, by promises, which belong to the covenant of grace. Hence the scripture, when it speaks properly, says that a covenant was made upon these ten words, or after the tenor of those words, Exod. xxxiv. 27. distinguishing the covenant itself, which consists in a mutual agreement from the ten words, which contain the conditions of it. The form of the covenant is exhibited by those words, which we have already quoted from Exod. xix. 5, 6, 8. I deny not, that the ten commandments are frequently in scripture called the covenant of God. But at the same time, no person can be ignorant, that the term covenant has various significations in the Hebrew, and often signifies nothing but a precept, as Jer. xxxiv. 18, 14. Thus Moses explains himself on this head, Deut. iv. 13. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments." They are therefore called a covenant by a synecdoche, because they contain those precepts, which God, when he set his covenant before them, required the Israelites to observe, and to which the said Israelites bound themselves by covenant. The ten words, or commandments, therefore, are not the form of a covenant properly so called, but the rule of duty: much less are they the form of the covenant of grace: because that covenant, in its strict signification, consists of mere promises and, as it relates to elect persons, has the nature of a testament, or last will, rather than of a covenant strictly speaking, and depends on no condition; as we have at large explained and proved, B. III. chap. I. sect. 8. etc. And. Jeremiah has shown us, that the form of the covenant of grace consists in absolute promises, chap. xxxi. 33. and xxxii. 38-40. In like manner, Isa. liv. 10." - _Economy of the Covenants, Herman Witsius, Book IV, p.186,187_

The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace, by Herman Witsius

Blessings!


----------



## non dignus (Jan 2, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> But, for your reference, Mr. Cronkhite, these are not the only options within the reformed tradition. Our own William Pemble takes a middle ground, as does Herman Witsius........ _Economy of the Covenants, Herman Witsius, Book IV, p.186,187_



Thank you, Sir.
This has been such a good education. And thanks to Richard, 'hoping for that quote from Dabney!

Holy is the Lord.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 2, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> But the ten words contain only a prescription of duty fenced on the one band by threatenings, taken from the covenant of works; on the other, by promises, which belong to the covenant of grace.



See, and this is what is confusing to me. Since when doesn't the Gospel have threatening and promises tied together? I believe that a dichotomizing of law and gospel has been going on for so long that this has burdened the church with confusion. And it need not be in my estimation when we take in the whole counsel of God. I don't understand why so many want to make the Law of God inseparable from the Covenant of Works as though its origin is bound up in the Covenant of Works. It is above the Covenant of Works. It is bound up in God's Character. Yes, God used the Law in the Covenant of Works but it existed way before the Covenant of Works did.

It wasn't the breathing out of the law threatening necessarily that drew me to Christ. It was the loveliness that the Law revealed to me concerning the Character of God. I knew I wasn't loving and that my world was messed up. I wanted something solid and right. I saw that beauty in the Law of God. The Law of God condemned me but it also drew me to Him because His character was revealed in it. 



> (Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
> 
> (Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jan 2, 2012)

Agreed Mr. Snyder. What's inseparable from the Covenant of Works is personal, perfect, and perpetual _obedience_ to the Moral Law (and all positive laws) as the terms of the Covenant on mankind's side.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 2, 2012)

Thank you Reverend Ruddell. My contention is that this perfect requirement of obedience didn't originate in the Covenant of Works. I do know some theologians who want to make the CofW the foundation for this and say it is so even referring to Chapter 19 of the WCF. I believe it comes from a place outside of that Covenant. That being from Eternity Past and from the Character of God. I think I have heard others who want to attach it to creation also. That is incorrect also if I am understanding their discussion also. After all when Lucifer fell he violated it before Adam did. I hope I am not treading into dangerous contemplation when considering this. There is a lot I don't know about this.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 3, 2012)

non dignus said:


> But it is a covenant of grant.



Covenant of "grant"?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jan 3, 2012)

Dear Mr. Snyder

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make--you are being careful to protect God's own eternal moral excellence, of which the Moral Law in an expression. I too desire to be careful in that regard. Under the paradigm of "Covenant" however, we must remember that there are always parties to a Covenant, and God's essential excellence is apart from any relations to His creatures--apart from his entering into Covenant. The parties of the Covenant of works are God, and Adam. God, by His sovereign rule over Adam, drew him into this Covenant relationship, as an act of His kind condescension to him, offering Him eternal life. The term of that Covenant on Adam's side was personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the Moral Law of God, along with the positive commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It does no violence to God's eternal moral excellence to attach these terms as terms of the Covenant of Works for God Himself required this of mankind as a term of life and communion with Himself under that Covenant. 

As for Satan (I don't like to call him "Lucifer", not sharing that interpretation of Isaiah 14) the Scriptures are silent regarding any kind of covenantal arrangement. Certainly there are sins attributed to him, and these sins are a violation of God's Moral Excellence, His Law, which is a rule given to moral creatures, and therefore he has incurred guilt for which he will be judged. This much is clear. But keep in mind that the Covenant of works and of grace as detailed in Scriptures are *federal* arrangements--that is, they operate within the confines of headship. The Covenant of works was made with Adam as a public person, so that when he fell, he fell for the race. The Covenant of Grace is made with Christ as the second Adam, in Him with all the elect as His seed. This headship arrangement is not a part, as far as we know, of the administration of elect and reprobate angels.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks Rev. Ruddell. We are in agreement and I understand what you are saying.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 3, 2012)

non dignus said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > But, for your reference, Mr. Cronkhite, these are not the only options within the reformed tradition. Our own William Pemble takes a middle ground, as does Herman Witsius........ _Economy of the Covenants, Herman Witsius, Book IV, p.186,187_
> ...



Dabney deals with the Republication question specifically, on pp 452-463 of his Systematic Theology which is online here at Lecture 38:

Directory Listing of //Systematic Theology/

I'm sure Kline's, and others', analysis of Hittite treaties is fascinating, and bears fruit in many ways e.g. re another argument for the unity and dating of the Pentateuch against the "Documentary Hypothesis". But there can be dangers in using insights from pagan sources and imposing them on the Bible and thus preventing the Bible from speaking for itself. Almost every biblical "genre" has its external non-biblical counterparts. The Holy Spirit uses these human genres for His own purposes and gives them His own content and meaning, and they must be interpreted in the light of other Scriptures rather than controlled and forced into artificial straightjackets that derive from the very worthwhile study of "similar" sources external to the Bible.

Another reason why some may think that Moses involves a CoW is because it echoes Eden somewhat. 

e.g. Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden as part of their punishment. If Israel was wicked she would be cast out of the Land, like Eve, along with her mediatorial prophets, priests and kings - Adam.

e.g. The cherubim guarded the way to the Tree of Life after Adam sinned, and the cherubim guarded the way to the Holy of Holies where life was promised to Israel on the basis of substitutionary atonement and where there was the seven branched candelabra, reminiscent of the life and light of pre-Fall Eden.

But the differences are greater than the similarities. Israel was allowed back into the Land after the exile. The exile was a gracious typological teaching aid. There are still Jews in the world today, including those who have faith in the Lord (Romans 9). In the New Covenant we have various chastisements that come upon the Church and individual Christians.

Israel had access to the Holy Place by means of the priests.

The Old Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, grace that was appropriate to the Old Covenant people. Being cast out without being cast into Hell is always a gracious warning from the Lord.

The law that had been broken by Adam was republished in the form of the Ten Commandments. The curse of the law was republished in the judicial law and in various types peculiar to Israel. There was a reminder of the hypothetical relation of sinful man to the law as a CoW in the Incident of the Golden Calf. The revelation of the Gospel that had been preached to Adam in Genesis 3:15 and to Abraham, was greatly expanded in the sacrifices, priesthood and feasts of Israel, in the mediatorial kingship and prophets.

Israel had more raw material for their faith in the Gospel than Abraham did.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jan 3, 2012)

It is also interesting to note that the Divines never use the phrase "Old Covenant", but consistently referred to it as the "Old Testament". They spoke of the Covenant of Grace in the times of the Old Testament, they spoke of the Covenant of Works, but did not use the term "Old Covenant". They speak of the "first Covenant" that is, the Covenant of Works, and the "second Covenant" that is, the Covenant of Grace consistently throughout the Confession and Catechisms.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 3, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> ...But the differences are greater than the similarities. Israel was allowed back into the Land after the exile. The exile was a gracious typological teaching aid. There are still Jews in the world today, including those who have faith in the Lord (Romans 9). In the New Covenant we have various chastisements that come upon the Church and individual Christians....



'just a quick thought. The republicationist might offer: That Israel was allowed back into the land was owing more to the form of the promise to Abraham than to the form of the Mosaic Covenant. 

How would you answer? 

Thanks.




> Israel had more raw material for their faith in the Gospel than Abraham did.



Hmm, interesting.


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2012)

non dignus said:


> 'just a quick thought. The republicationist might offer: That Israel was allowed back into the land was owing more to the form of the promise to Abraham than to the form of the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> How would you answer?



The Abrahamic covenant promised seed and land. With the multiplication of the seed God constituted them an holy nation prior to giving them the land. It is the Mosaic covenant which constituted them an holy nation. It is impossible to conceive of this as differing in nature with the Abrahamic covenant since it was co-extensive with the promised seed and had in view the same promised land. The two covenants are continuous. Consider, for example, Psalm 105. What God did for Israel is explained as a remembering of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Verse 10 specifically unites them in one line of redemptive history by mixing terms -- Jacob is the recipient of law and Israel is taken up in the everlasting covenant. Such intermingling of terms means the two are identified as a part of one and the same economy. All that pertains to Israel is a part of this economy, including the giving of the land, vv. 42-44.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 3, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> One more thought Elder Cronkhite. It seems the passage you are referring to in Romans has a context. Romans 2-4 is very explicit concerning the law and justification. Even though circumcision is spoken of in the concept of law keeping, the truth of it is revealed in what it's purpose was in Abraham. The Jews were turning it into something it wasn't as I have noted in many other places concerning how they were trying to use the law to justify themselves. The law will always pronounce condemnation since all men are condemned in Adam. But faith in the promises of God release us from that condemnation as the sign and seal testify to this fact. By grace that law chases and goads us to Christ. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/



Yes, thank you. I had forgotten about Rm 2:13 which, to me, is a restatement of the CoW arrangement. He is 'setting up' his argument for justification by faith alone. He is arguing against the Galatian Judaizers with _the mere nature of law as the subject of discussion,_ not as incorporated in the Torah. 

Christ was the doer of the law. Christ kept not only the law generally considered, but He kept the Torah. This is formal.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 3, 2012)

> 'just a quick thought. The republicationist might offer: That Israel was allowed back into the land was owing more to the form of the promise to Abraham than to the form of the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> How would you answer?
> 
> Thanks.



I can't really add much to what Mathew said. The Old Covenant (or Mosaic Economy) was an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as is the New Covenant (or Christian Economy).

It's just that the Old Covenant was a particularly outward, law-heavy, visual/graphic, temporary administration, because the Lord knew that that was what the people of God needed at the childhood state of Israel/the Church. 

It didn't mean they were in any sense locked in a CoW. The Pharisees locked themselves in a man made CoW which was against the Lord's preceptive will.

Similarly children need their toys and picturebooks and a peculiar system of discipline. Once they are put away they still learn from them their whole life through. Once we put away the bricks with the letters of the alphabet on them, we are still using what we learnt.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 3, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> It's just that the Old Covenant was a particularly outward, law-heavy, visual/graphic, temporary administration, because the Lord knew that that was what the people of God needed at the childhood state of Israel/the Church.






> CHAPTER XI
> 
> The Difference of the Two Testaments
> 
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 3, 2012)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> It is also interesting to note that the Divines never use the phrase "Old Covenant", but consistently referred to it as the "Old Testament". They spoke of the Covenant of Grace in the times of the Old Testament, they spoke of the Covenant of Works, but did not use the term "Old Covenant". They speak of the "first Covenant" that is, the Covenant of Works, and the "second Covenant" that is, the Covenant of Grace consistently throughout the Confession and Catechisms.



Yes. I suppose I tend to use OT for the OT Scriptures and for the whole OT period from the Beginning, and Old Covenant for the Mosaic Covenant and for the period from Moses.

But the use of the term Old Testament in the WCF, once again shows that the divines viewed the Mosaic as being of a piece, and as being an outworking of the Abrahamic, and not so essentially distinct as to be desgnated, "Old Covenant" or something else. 

On the other hand, some Baptists, tend to make Abraham more like Moses for their purposes. But Moses should take his gracious flavour from Abraham, rather than Abraham taking a supposed CoW flavour from Moses.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 3, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> .....Consider, for example, Psalm 105. What God did for Israel is explained as a remembering of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Verse 10 specifically unites them in one line of redemptive history by mixing terms -- Jacob is the recipient of law and Israel is taken up in the everlasting covenant. Such intermingling of terms means the two are identified as a part of one and the same economy. All that pertains to Israel is a part of this economy, including the giving of the land, vv. 42-44.



Beautiful. Very interesting.


----------

