# Interesting Upcoming Book on the Mosaic Covenant



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2008)

P & R Publishing: Individual Title
*
The Law Is Not of Faith
Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant*

Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, David VanDrunen

Is the Mosaic covenant in some sense a republication of the covenant of works? What is the nature of its demand for obedience, since sinful man is unable to obey as God requires? How in turn was the law to drive Israel to Jesus? This book explores these issues pertaining to the doctrine of republication—once a staple in Reformed theology—a doctrine with far-reaching implications for Paul’s theology, our relationship to Old Testament law, justification, and more.

This anthology argues that the Mosaic covenant in some sense replicates the original covenant with Adam in the garden, and that this notion is neither novel to nor optional for Reformed theology. The authors locate it within the fabric of federal theology in its Reformation and post-Reformation development, and more importantly, they demonstrate how it is firmly embedded in the flow of redemptive history. Finally, they explain why a thin and merely soteric Calvinism, without the support of federal theology, cannot withstand the challenges to Reformed orthodoxy today. While varying among themselves in their expression of this “republication thesis,” these authors together make a compelling and coherent argument with rich historical, exegetical, and theological insights.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 25, 2008)

Bump


----------



## JDKetterman (Nov 25, 2008)

I'll have to check it out.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

> a doctrine with far-reaching implications for Paul’s theology



What is that supposed to mean? Paul's theology? Is that how they talk in the schools of higher leaning? As if what Paul wrote was not God Breathed.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 26, 2008)

Hi:

Would you like to discuss the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works? The authors of this book take the positive side. Reformed Theologians since the 16th Century (in the majority) have argued the opposite.

I would be interested in exploring this with anyone here.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

RTaron said:


> > a doctrine with far-reaching implications for Paul’s theology
> 
> 
> 
> What is that supposed to mean? Paul's theology? Is that how they talk in the schools of higher leaning? As if what Paul wrote was not God Breathed.



That is not the implication at all. There are different emphases of different Scriptural writers. God did not ignore the human differences between Paul and John when fully inspiring His Bible. One can tell the difference between John and Paul. Of course, there are no contradictions, but that is certainly not implied in saying "Paul's theology."
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 11:27:31 EST-----


CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Would you like to discuss the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works? The authors of this book take the positive side. Reformed Theologians since the 16th Century (in the majority) have argued the opposite.
> 
> ...



They are merely following the WCF, which clearly says in chapter 19 that the law is continuous from Adam to Sinai. Anyone not part of the covenant of grace is still subservient to the covenant of works. Of course, the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of grace. However, that does not prevent an overlap of covenants in the Mosaic economy. From my reading, most Reformed theologians have gone the route of republication, while also recognizing that the Mosaic economy has aspects of the covenant of grace as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2008)

See that is the thing Lane. I think Chapter 7 of the WCF makes it pretty clear that the Mosaic Covenant is wholly a Covenant of Grace and is in no part of a Covenant of Works. 



> Chapter 7 -
> Of God’s Covenant with Man. III-V
> 
> III. Man by [Adam's] fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered 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 life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> ...


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> See that is the thing Lane. I think Chapter 7 of the WCF makes it pretty clear that the Mosaic Covenant is wholly a Covenant of Grace and is in no part of a Covenant of Works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Saying that the Mosaic economy is of grace does not preclude a simultaneous covenant of works. Read chapter 19 of the WCF very carefully, and you fill find that the moral law is the common thread here that links the Adamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant, though, of course, in such a way that the Mosaic economy is also a covenant of grace. Nothing in chapter 7 excludes an additional layer of the Mosaic economy.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

Thanks Lane. It is a confusing way to use words if you ask me. How could you know what "Paul's theology" was in the first place without comparing it with the rest of the scripture?

Anyway, back to the topic. I'm with CH, if this book is promoting some view that the children of Israel received the promise land by works it is not confessional.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

RTaron said:


> Thanks Lane. It is a confusing way to use words if you ask me. How could you know what "Paul's theology" was in the first place without comparing it with the rest of the scripture?
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic. I'm with CH, if this book is promoting some view that the children of Israel received the promise land by works it is not confessional.



Of course one wouldn't know what "Paul's theology" was without comparing it to the rest of Scripture. However, is such a decontextualized method being advocated simply by saying "Paul's theology?" Surely it is being used as a synonym for "the corpus of Paul's books and what they mean." That is a bit cumbersome, however, so it is not surprising that someone may use a common, conventional even, way of referring to what Paul meant (what God meant through Paul).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > See that is the thing Lane. I think Chapter 7 of the WCF makes it pretty clear that the Mosaic Covenant is wholly a Covenant of Grace and is in no part of a Covenant of Works.
> ...



What I believe the Divines to be teaching here in Chapter 19 is not that the Covenant of Works continues in the Law (because how can a Covenant continue after it is broken?) and that we are still able/supposed to fulfill act on this Covenant but that in effect the Law continues in its role as a schoolmaster just as it did for Adam. In other words the Law in the Garden fills the same role as it does for us. Also because the Covenant of Works was specifically limited to Gen 2:15-17 the rest of the law is still in effect, but the original Covenant is not, though since we are all still in Adam we all continued under the curse of Genesis 3.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

> (what God meant through Paul).



I'll give you the fact that one can tell by comparison that an epistle was written by one writer over against another writer, but how can someone say that there was some kind of distinct theology. (what God meant through Paul *about himself *right?) Are we talking about an emphasis of some kind? then OK. But we digress.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > See that is the thing Lane. I think Chapter 7 of the WCF makes it pretty clear that the Mosaic Covenant is wholly a Covenant of Grace and is in no part of a Covenant of Works.
> ...




Lane,

Using the logic of republication, could we not say then that the New Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works also? If not, why?

(to be fair - there is a trap waiting in the wings...  )


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

Christ fulfills the covenant of works, or maybe we could say He repairs the covenant of works, such that it applies to us as a covenant of grace, with Christ being the Mediator. The big problem with the lack of republication in the Mosaic covenant is that if the CoW is defunct in the sense of no longer applying, then Christ did not need to fulfill those conditions. The CoW is actually still in effect today for all those outside the CoG. If one is not in the CoG, then one is in the CoW, and still subject to its demands, broken though the covenant is. That covenant equals the moral law, which is my answer to Benjamin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Christ fulfills the covenant of works, or maybe we could say He repairs the covenant of works, such that it applies to us as a covenant of grace, with Christ being the Mediator. The big problem with the lack of republication in the Mosaic covenant is that if the CoW is defunct in the sense of no longer applying, then Christ did not need to fulfill those conditions. The CoW is actually still in effect today for all those outside the CoG. If one is not in the CoG, then one is in the CoW, and still subject to its demands, broken though the covenant is. That covenant equals the moral law, which is my answer to Benjamin.



But Lane,

One can have a constancy in the CoW without Republication. Fisher's _Marrow of Modern Divinity_ describes this well. In fact the CoW is still firmly in place for all outside Christ now, even though no one (I believe) would argue that the New Covenant is (in any sense) a republication of the CoW.

The CoW continues on from the Garden; it does not _need_ republication. I would argue that making the Mosaic Covenant a republication creates far more problems than it solves (not the least of which is pitting the OT against the NT).


----------



## Casey (Nov 26, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Lane,
> 
> Using the logic of republication, could we not say then that the New Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works also? If not, why?
> 
> (to be fair - there is a trap waiting in the wings...  )


I've used the same argument. If where ever there is law this is the covenant of works, then the covenant of grace is a covenant of works. The problem I see with those arguing for republication is that they equate the law with the covenant of works (hence their, as I see it, misreading of WCF 19 to get their republication doctrine).

Say I have a $20 bill in my hand. That piece of paper is not a gift until I give it as a gift. I may use it at the store, and in that context, it's not a gift. When I give it as a gift then it's a gift. There's nothing inherent in the $20 that makes it a gift until I give it to someone else in that context and with that intention.

God's law exists. That law is not a covenant of works until he attaches a promise of eternal life for obedience to it. He may give the law in the context of the covenant of grace, and if he does this, then that doesn't make it a covenant of works. When he gives the law as a covenant of works, then that's what it is because that covenant establishes one's relationship to the law. There's nothing about the law that makes it a covenant of grace or a covenant of works unless God gives it with that intention.

God redeems Israel, then gives the law. Don't we see the very same general pattern in the NT epistles? God redeemed you, now live this way.

This has been discussed on here a lot in the past. I think I'll sit back and watch now.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Christ fulfills the covenant of works, or maybe we could say He repairs the covenant of works, such that it applies to us as a covenant of grace, with Christ being the Mediator. The big problem with the lack of republication in the Mosaic covenant is that if the CoW is defunct in the sense of no longer applying, then Christ did not need to fulfill those conditions. The CoW is actually still in effect today for all those outside the CoG. If one is not in the CoG, then one is in the CoW, and still subject to its demands, broken though the covenant is. That covenant equals the moral law, which is my answer to Benjamin.
> ...



I'm not arguing that the CoW somehow _needed_ to be republished. I argue that it was in fact republished when Leviticus says "Do this and live." That is the essence of the CoW as ALL Reformed theologians have said. The promise of obtaining eternal life as the result of obeying the moral law has always existed. The Mosaic covenant says that too. For that matter, if one is not in the CoG today, even the NT tells us that we are in the CoW. The problem with eliminating the CoW from the Mosaic covenant entirely is that it obscures the close relationship that the CoW has with the CoG in Christ's person and work. Of course, here we cannot forget the pactum salutis. In the PS, the Son agreed to take on the brokenness of the CoW in order that, by the same token, it might be to us a CoG. The overlay in the Mosaic covenant speaks of this close relationship. 

Such a position does not in any way pit the OT against the NT, since the very overlay points us to Christ who fulfills the CoW for us to that God can relate to us in the CoG. There is, of course, continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. The continuity is that the CoW is always in force. The discontinuity is that there is no overlay anymore between the CoG and the CoW.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

> That covenant equals the moral law,



Lane, where in the moral law are we required not to eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden? The covenant was with Adam the first and us in him.

I agree with Fred, "a republication creates far more problems than it solves" the first problem I see is that the covenant of works is changed, the bar is lowered and you have to ignore the fact that you come out of the womb guilty.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 26, 2008)

RTaron said:


> > That covenant equals the moral law,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your first question is not to the point, since, as 19.1 explicitly states the _entire_ moral law was given to Adam _AS_ the covenant of works. The CoW is a whole lot more than just the forbidding of the fruit. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. In that one command is summarized whether God will be Adam's God (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind). So the one command not to eat of the tree has to be set alongside the creation mandate given to Adam, and the entire moral law given to Adam. 

As to your second point, I really don't see how coming out of the womb guilty assaults my point. We are part of the CoW as covenant breakers until God changes our covenant status to members of the CoG. How in the world is that lowering the bar?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



Lane,

There is always an overlay between the CoW and the CoG (in time, but not in who is in each covenant). There is also an overlay between the Law as a covenant of works (for those outside Christ) and the Law as a rule of life (for those in Christ). Again, by far the best treatment of this I have read is Fisher's. I find his explanation far more satisfactory than that coming out of WSC (and even more so than Klinean explanations).

When the Law says "do this and live" it says it to the man in the CoW. It says it to him in Adam's day, Abraham's, Moses', and mine. The Law always says that to those outside of Christ. It does not need a republication to do that. The republication aspect militates against the Mosaic covenant's clear CoG aspect.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2008)

RTaron said:


> > That covenant equals the moral law,
> 
> 
> 
> Lane, where in the moral law are we required not to eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden? The covenant was with Adam the first and us in him.



Here is something an acquaintance wrote.



> There's a line in the SLC about the same law of Moses being in the Garden. When considering this, this line of argument can be very persuasive, for, if the Law was there, the Law presupposes a Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


-----Added 11/26/2008 at 02:26:58 EST-----
What did God give, when he wrote by his own hand the Ten Words on the Mt.?


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

Lane, you said:


> I argue that it was in fact republished when Leviticus says "Do this and live." That is the essence of the CoW as ALL Reformed theologians have said. The promise of obtaining eternal life as the result of obeying the moral law has always existed.



So, do you believe that if you kept the whole law perfectly, you would have earned a right to spend eternity with God ? 

What about the guilt of Adams first sin. How would all your righteousness erase that sin?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2008)

I love Romans 3, 4, 7, and 10. 



> (Rom 7:7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
> 
> (Rom 7:8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
> 
> ...





> (Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
> 
> (Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
> 
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 26, 2008)

Greenbaggins:

I would like to see all those Reformed divines who claim that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works? As Pastor Greco has pointed out the Marrow makes it very plain that the Mosaic Covenant was not a republication of the Covenant of Works:



> Evangelista: No indeed' God never made the covenant of works with any man since the fall, either with expectation that he should fulfill it, or to give him life by it; for God never appoints anything to an end, to the which it is utterly unsuitable and improper. Now, the law, as it is the covenant of works, is become weak and unprofitable to the purpose of salvation; and therefore God never appointed it to man, since the fall, to that end ... Wherefore let no man imagine that God published the covenant of works on Mount Sinai, as though he had been mutable, and so changed his determination in that covenant made with Abraham, From: Thomas Boston, Works Vol. 7, pg. 202.


Consider, Lane, the very preface to the Law in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5:



> I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage...


Is this not a Gracious act on God's part? He delivered His people out of slavery in Egypt. As we all know that the Old Testament held types and shadows of the realities in the New, then should we not interpret this as the Covenant of Grace? 

You refer to Leviticus 18:5, but I will submit to you that if you look at the verse carefully, then you will find that it is actually a statement of the Covenant of Grace. Consider the context:



> And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God., Lev. 18:1,2.


This is the wording of the Covenant of Grace: "I will be your God, and you will be my people." God is addressing His People as their Covenant God.



> After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein; I am the LORD your God, vs. 3,4.


God is commanding us to be separate from the Gentiles. When God takes a people to Himself He commands them to walk in His ordinances, and not those of the Gentiles.



> Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD


God, speaking to His People already Redeemed, gives the Law as a Rule of Life for them to live. This is the Law in the Covenant of Grace given through the hand of the Mediator to direct us how to live. I see no republication of the Covenant of Works here.

Does Paul in referring to Lev 18:5 take this passage out of context in Romans 10:5 and Gal. 3:11,12? I hope not!

Since Paul is speaking about Justification in these passages he contrasts the Law as a Rule of Life in Sanctification with Justification by Faith alone. Calvin clearly points this out:



> Gal. 3:12 - And the law is not of faith. The law evidently is not contrary to faith; otherwise God would be unlike himself; but we must return to a principle already noticed, that Paul's language is modified by the present aspect of the case. The contradiction between the law and faith lies in the matter of justification, Commentary on Galatians.


The arguemnt that Paul is making in Rom. 10 and Galatians 3 is the misuse of the Law as taught by Moses. Even to attempt to obey the Law as a Covenant of Works is contrary to Faith in Christ and the Covenant of Grace.

I have carefully read the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 19. What I see is that, "This Law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God on Mount Sinai.."

I see here the Law continuing as a perfect rule of righteousness, but I do not see here that the Covenant of Works continued. That way of receiving everlasting life being shut down, God now deals with all of mankind through the Covenant of Grace. Unbelievers rejecting the Covenant of Grace have no where to go for salvation - though they fancy they are saved by their good works. Read carefully WCF 19:6.



> Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, by the the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, Gal. 2:16.



In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## JDKetterman (Nov 26, 2008)

I've been sitting back and observing, and I wanted to put down a few thoughts. I find it problematic to see a covenant of works as obsolete. If the covenant of works did in fact cease with Adam, then there was no need for Christ to fulfill all the terms of the covenant of works.

Ironically, the Westminster Divines use the Decalogue for their proof texts for the covenant of works. I agree with most in here that mosaic covenant is under the overarching covenant of Grace, but the substance or the works principle in the COW is definitely republished. Is the covenant in and of itself a covenant of works? Nope. But is the substance of that covenant made in creation republished? Yep. 

Does that mean that Israel could earn their justification before God? No, and I don't think that is what those who are at WSC are saying. What they are saying is that there are two types of covenants that are put out through redemptive history. Just as Galations 4:21-31 says:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; [5] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, [6] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

The popular view that everyone seems to be advocated in here is that the covenants that were made with Abraham and Moses are not two covenants, but just one and the same covenant. The covenant made on Sinai (which most of you believe is all about Grace), Paul says bears children for slavery. This other covenant, made with Abraham, is said to bear free children. If the covenant of Sinai is not a republication of the COW, why does Paul says that this covenant bears slavery?

Passages such as Romans 2:13 clearly says that God will justify a man by their works. If the covenant of works was still not in effect, then such passages would make absolutely no sense unless you take a Norman Shepherd, FV, or New Perspective hermeneutic. 

The Law being republished in Sinai was not meant to be a means of justification in and of itself, but it was meant to show us are inability to fulfill the terms of that covenant. If the works principle was not republished, then there is no reason to provide a sacrificial system for atonement. Israel many times broke the terms of this covenant which were provided in the Decalogue, and God many times required Sacrifice for Israel to receive blessings from God.


----------



## RTaron (Nov 26, 2008)

The effects of Covenant of Works go on as we live in our estate of sin and misery. Its authority is republished every minute of every day when someone dies.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2008)

JDKetterman said:


> I've been sitting back and observing, and I wanted to put down a few thoughts. I find it problematic to see a covenant of works as obsolete. If the covenant of works did in fact cease with Adam, then there was no need for Christ to fulfill all the terms of the covenant of works.
> 
> Ironically, the Westminster Divines use the Decalogue for their proof texts for the covenant of works. I agree with most in here that mosaic covenant is under the overarching covenant of Grace, but the substance or the works principle in the COW is definitely republished. Is the covenant in and of itself a covenant of works? Nope. But is the substance of that covenant made in creation republished? Yep.
> 
> ...



I never said that the COW was obsolete. In fact, I said the opposite. I don't think (respectfully) JD, that you understand what I am saying.

It is (almost) funny to hear that I have a New Perspective or Shepherd hermeneutic.

The Law was indeed still a CoW to those outside Christ at the time of Sinai. No one (in a Westminsterian view) is denying that. What some of us are questioning is the propriety of saying that Sinai _as a covenant_ was a republication of the _covenant_ of works. It is a very different thing from Law as a principle of works ("do this and live") and the Law as a covenant.

I believe I gave some thoughts on that in Galatians 4:

http://cckpca.org/sermonfiles/galatians/20070107AM_Fred Greco_Galatians_20.mp3


----------



## JDKetterman (Nov 26, 2008)

Hi Fred,

I understand what you are saying, but I was answering to some in here who seem to think that the covenant of works is no longer binding. When I get a little time this week, I'll take a look at some of your thoughts of Galations 4. 

As far as calling it a covenant of works in and of itself, I will agree with you that it is problematic. When using covenant of works language to describe the Decalogue, the language can be confusing because one is made with before the Fall and the other after the fall. However, I do see continuity between the two when we're speaking about a works principle.

In the beginning of this covenant, God declares Himself to be the one whom redeems Israel. In essence, I agree that this is given to redeemed people. God gives the ten words or the Decalogue to Israel for them so they can live if they are to receive blessings. 

"And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God." (Deut 28:2)

If they are to break the terms of this covenant, curses are attached for covenant breaking. 

“But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you." (Deut 28:15)

Paul, in Galations 4, contrasts the both of these covenants. Rather than calling them one covenant, like many in here are saying, he's calling them two covenants. One made of the slave woman and one made of the free woman. One that was made with Abraham and one that was made with Moses. This covenant made on Sinai, as Paul says, produces slavery. This other covenant made with Abraham, produces free women.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2008)

JD,

When Paul contrasts the two covenants, he is doing so between the Covenant of Law (Works) and the Covenant of Promise (Grace). He is contrasting the two principles, not Mosaic and New Covenants.


----------



## KMK (Nov 27, 2008)

Rev McMahon makes this point in a past thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/mos...n-covenant-works-light-deuteronomy-9-a-14823/




> I think quite a bit also stems from Hosea's commentary on how the Isrealites broke the covenant (which one?) in the same manner that Adam (oh that one!) did.
> 
> Hosea 6:7, "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me."
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> JDKetterman said:
> 
> 
> > I've been sitting back and observing, and I wanted to put down a few thoughts. I find it problematic to see a covenant of works as obsolete. If the covenant of works did in fact cease with Adam, then there was no need for Christ to fulfill all the terms of the covenant of works.
> ...


I agree.

I think the problem with noting that the Law was a re-publication of the CoW is not that it cannot be understood in a proper sense but it can also lead to an improper understanding of the larger purpose of adding the Law.

In Galatians 3, Paul asks an important question that I believe goes to the heart of the matter:



> 21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.



If the Law is, indeed, a strict re-publication of the CoW then it would have to be said to be contrary to the promises of God. Paul notes that the Law is added within the structure of a CoG, given to those who were heirs to the promise and not to all men.

This is bound to sound pejorative and I don't mean to be so but I think there is a sense in which it is the very error that Paul is railing against to view the Law as a "Do this and live", which is what the CoW is. That is to say that it is the Judaizers who have apprehended Moses as essentially saying "Do This and Live" when, in fact, Paul labors the point that if Moses was delivering this then he would be against the Abrahamic Promise and God Himself would have broken a Promise to Abraham.

Thus, calling the Law a republication of the CoW goes too far. From a pedagogical standpoint, it communicates the wrong thing. Now, I realize that there is some subtlety here and that men need to be taken for what they're really communicating and not merely what the "headline" says. As far as it goes, I understand what some are saying by it and don't have a huge problem with it. But, as headlines go, the average man in the pew might miss the wider purpose of the Law if he merely views the Law as being contrary to the Promise when, in fact, Paul clearly states it is not contrary to the Promise but was given to fulfill the Promise.

I obviously have respect for some Reformers in the past that used this language (though certainly not all did) but I think we can all agree how we've seen language mis-used in recent years and I really think it is not trivial where some have taken the republication of the CoW concept as something we ought to be concerned to qualify every time we use the term.

My own view of this is that the Law was added for a gracious, pedagogical purpose where, even in the giving of the Law, the Gospel is telescoped. Certainly there were those that tried to interpret the Law as another CoW (i.e. the Pharisees) but we need to let God decide what the real purpose is and how the regenerate were to view the Law as preparing us longingly for the Messiah. It is the Gospel that the generation in the wilderness were said to reject.

Finally, haven't we all seen those that take the explicit Gospel of the New Testament and turn it into a "republication of the CoW"? From the Be-Attitutdes to the Purpose Driven Life, the message of grace will always be twisted into a "Do This and Live". It's not the Law that kills but the sinful heart when it comes into contact with it (Romans 7:13-14). The CoG is ever twisted by the fallen soul unless God is gracious to grant life by it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 27, 2008)

JDKetterman:

I share Pastor Greco's amazement concerning your statement that denying the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant leads one to a New Perspective or Romanist position on Justification? Where do you get that?

The NP/Romanist position is that one can be Justified by the works of the Law. The NP position denies the active obedience of Christ and replaces it with the "works of faith" (whatever they mean by that). The Papist view is that one can be justified by works (taking the statements in James in its literal and non-contextual meaning).

By saying that God has "republished the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic economy" you are implying, at least, that one can achieve everlasting life through the Works of the Law. I am absolutely sure that you do not believe such a thing. But, consider this:

The preamble to the Law given at Sinai is clearly a statement of God's love and mercy towards His people. Now, after all of this love and mercy given to them, would it be fitting for God to "republish the Covenant of Works" to them at Sinai? Is it not more fitting for God to be handing them the Law in the Covenant of Grace as a rule of life? Are the children of God (for that is what He calls them) going to be placed under the yoke of bondage to the Covenant of Works again? 

Furthermore, if you are going to interpret the preamble to the Mosaic Law as a republication of the Covenant of Works, then where do you see the Covenant of Grace expressed in the Mosaic economy?

You claim that Paul's point concerning Galatians 4:22ff (Hagar and Sarah - the two covenants) requires one to interpret the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works. Calvin goes through this extensively in his Commentary:



> What, then, is the _gendering to bondage_, which forms the subject of the present dispute? It denotes those who make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery. Not so the pious fathers, who lived under the Old Testament; for their slavish birth by the law did not hinder them from having Jerusalem for their mother in spirit. But those who adhere to the bare law, and do not acknowledge it to be "a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ," (Gal. 3:24) but rather make it a hinderance to prevent their coming to him, are the Ishmaelites born to slavery ... But why does Paul compare the present Jerusalem with Mount Sinai? Though I was once of a different opinion, yet I agree with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who explain it as referring to the earthly Jerusalem, and who interpreet the words, _which now is,_ as marking the slavish doctrine and worship into which it has degenerated. It ought to have been a lively image of the new Jerusalem, and a representation of its character. But such as it now is, it is rather related to Mount Sinai, Commentary on Gal. 3:24,25.


The very point that Paul is making is that the Covenant of Works was not republished on Mount Sinai, but there are those who "make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery" (as Calvin puts it).

The Law given at Sinai was not meant to be a republication of the Covenant of Works, but a gracious statement by God of taking a people to Himself, and giving them a rule of life for them to live. The Law, as it is a summary of the Covenant of Works, is not republished as a Covenant of Works at Sinai.

The question is not whether the Law is a summary of the Covenant of Works given to Adam before the Fall. It is, whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is a republishing of the Covenant of Works?

Kindly show me where, in the Mosaic Covenant, there is a republishing of the Covenant of works?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## JDKetterman (Dec 12, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> JDKetterman:
> 
> I share Pastor Greco's amazement concerning your statement that denying the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant leads one to a New Perspective or Romanist position on Justification? Where do you get that?
> 
> ...



Rob,

I thought I already showed you in Galations 4. I don't believe the comment by Calvin actually contradicts what I am saying. Where I get this is from the FVs minimizing or rejection of the Law/Gospel hermeneutic that is held within the Reformed tradition. They use the same covenant "smashing" and say it's all about Grace (even Adam). 

You are right that I am implying that one can be right with God by keeping all of God's Law. Just as if Adam kept the covenant of works, he would receive blessings for keeping it I do believe one can earn eternal life if they keep the whole covenant of works. So you are wrong, I do actually believe that. Please keep in mind though that I am using the word "if." Paul uses the hypothetical when one being justified by the works of the Law in Romans 2.

As far as the preamble of the decalogue, it is not in my place to say what is and what is not fitting. It is true that God redeems Israel, but how could Israel break this covenant? If they don't keep the terms of this covenant, what happens to them? Let me be clear by saying that I don't believe that Israel could earn their salvation, but it did serve a purpose before the Messiah came. What we disagree with is what that purpose was. 

In contrast with Abraham, God was the one who took on the terms of the covenant. He promised to Abraham that he would build Him a great nation. Instead of making Abraham walk between the animal carcasses, but He takes it on Himself the terms of the covenant. 

Paul is not actually contrasting principles, but contrasting two covenants. One made with Abraham and one made with Moses. The Law, not what people think of the Law, is of the slave woman.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 12, 2008)

Just skimming this thread it seems to me that a key distinction is being missed in the discussion. It looks to me as if everyone here is speaking of republication as being related to the individual in Israel, and then getting worked up over its implications for soteriology. 

From what I was taught regarding republication during my time at WSCAL, and from what I read on the issue in both Witsius and Turretin, the republication doctrine is discussing the law as given to Israel on a national level, and as a national covenant. It has to do with Israel as a national entity, and not so much the individual Israelite. 

So then, it makes perfect sense to say that, as was warned by Moses in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy, when Israel as a nation failed to keep their end of the covenant, they received the curses of the covenant, and eventually lost the promise land. What this then allows us to do is to show how this typology of Israel's faithlessness to the republished CoW pointed toward the necessary work and faithfulness of the anti-typical Christ for his people, and in the securing of the heavenly promised land. It is clear in the servant songs of Isaiah that Christ takes upon himself the role of the servant Israel in a corporate manner, as well as fulfilling the more personal servant songs of the individual servant (there is both an individual and corporate aspect to the servant in that section of Isaiah).

Republication can be a difficult concept for some to get their mind around when they haven't had opportunity to discuss the theology behind it, and the various passages which support it. Having heard both lectures regarding it, and read older reformed theologians who support it, I have no worry about it, and do not see it being used to undermine any important point of soteriology. Actually, after having come to understand it, I felt that the history of Israel made a lot more sense to me, and that preaching Christ from the OT had just become that much more rich.

I would recommend that any who are concerned about it pick up the book when it comes out, read through it, and then get back with your arguments here if there are still questions that remain. I have seen a number of reformed folk in the past get really worked up over republication, and I think it is because they misunderstand it. For the life of me, I have never been able to see what the big deal is, and part of that is because I think that those who take issue with it are taking issue with something that it is not. 

Read Witsius, read Turretin; Horton writes some on this in his _God of Promise_, and it is referenced also (if memory serves) in the _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry_ volume as well. I look forward to picking up the new work when it comes out, and brushing up on the doctrine a bit. I really do think that it is a beneficial aspect of covenant theology in relationship to the theocracy. Try it, and tell me what you think after you've read it!


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 12, 2008)

(I'm a little new to this subject, but I've been interested in it for a long time and certainly appreciate what folks have posted above.)

Would those who argue for republication say that every time God asserts or explains a moral principle in his Word, the Covenant of Works is being presented anew, or at least in clearer focus to the sinner's view?

E.g. even in the Abrahamic Covenant, "walk before me and be blameless" and in the New Testament "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" -- passages we would normally associate with the CoG?

1. If so, that makes some sense to me. An unbeliever can appreciate Jesus' commentary on the Law that hating your brother is a violation of the command against murder. But until such a one hears and believes the gospel, he is not included in the CoG, and as such is under judgment for his failure to keep the Law. Therefore, Jesus' words seem to have application under the CoW as far as that sinner is concerned, at that point in time.

2. If not, then what was it that was special about the Mosaic Law that makes it a republication, that is not true of Jesus' exposition of the Law?


Answering my own question above, I guess what some people are looking for is a restatement of an offer of earning salvation by merit. But if that principle is already established, why does it need to be said again? If (as everyone agrees) the CoW continues in full force through history, why can't we take any expression of the Law of God as speaking to two audiences -- those who trust in Yahweh Saves (CoG, Matt 1:21), versus those who do not "combine [the message] with faith" (arguably CoW, Heb 4:2+Gal 4:25)?

-----Added 12/12/2008 at 07:32:35 EST-----

Another note -- I asked "why does it need to be said again". An additional reason it doesn't need to be said is that nobody actually has opportunity to earn eternal life that way. Further clarification of the Law has two realistic remaining functions in the CoW -- condemning sinners further, and serving as a schoolmaster to drive to Christ (then swapping over to CoG, I suppose).


----------



## Archlute (Dec 12, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> (I'm a little new to this subject, but I've been interested in it for a long time and certainly appreciate what folks have posted above.)
> 
> Would those who argue for republication say that every time God asserts or explains a moral principle in his Word, the Covenant of Works is being presented anew, or at least in clearer focus to the sinner's view?
> 
> ...



This is a great example of what I was getting at by my above statements (not to pick on you in particular for posting this). It does not have to do with individual soteriological issues, but theocratic, national issues - i.e. the land covenant. Israel transgressed the stipulations of the covenant as given in the book of Deuteronomy, and was then punished and ejected from the land as a nation. It is typological, and it is national. 

That being said, most of the questions being asked above can be seen to be asking the wrong question. It was not about individual salvation by merit, it was about the theocracy's obedience to a national covenant, which was a demonstration of typological realities. As soon as questions begin to be asked about individuals, the wrong questions are being asked (unless, of course, the individual in question is Christ).


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2008)

Adam,

The Covenant of Works is not a theocratic covenant, but an individualistic, salvation covenant with Adam in the garden. The Mosaic Covenant may be as you describe, but that would not make it a republication of the CoW. You can talk about dry water, but that does not make it exist.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 12, 2008)

Just a thought from reading this thread: I'm pretty sure almost everyone who has commented has a different idea of what "Republication" means. This might be causing mass confusion.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 12, 2008)

Fred, 

That may be what is causing some of the confusion. 

I believe that either Witsius or Turretin (if not both) spoke of it as being a form of a republication of the Covenant of Works, but that on a national level. Maybe they caused confusion in appropriating that terminology, but I found it helpful myself. I understand that in common Reformed theological discussion that particular covenant is used in personal/soteriological categories, and not in a national/promissory manner, but I think that they allowed for this because they were using it to describe a typological relationship that illustrated some profound theological truths.


Paul, 

I think you hit the nail on the head, which I why I would like to read this book and see if it does a better job of describing the terms and issues for the broader public than can be done here, and gets to the heart of the matter in a way that clarifies things and satisfies the majority of theological inquirers. Maybe there will still be disagreement, but hopefully it will then be because of a disagreement with the fundamental thesis, and not because the we are all confused regarding terms and concepts. Like I said, I'm looking forward to it! I actually got pretty severely raked over the coals in private during a seminary internship after having made mention of this in a class that I was teaching. I'd like to think that this could lead to my vindication


----------



## discipulo (Dec 13, 2008)

> I find his explanation far more satisfactory than that coming out of WSC (and even more so than Klinean explanations).




I still would like to reinforce the contribution of Meredith Kline for this very interesting debate.

Kline maintaining the continuum on Redemptive History and a covenantal hermeneutics 

on the antithesis between law and grace – yet, instead of a republication per se



Kline defends that a Foedus Legale and a Foedus Gratiae is even seen present together 

in Exodus 19-24, one for the Nation of Israel and the other for Individual Salvation.




Meredith Kline, always highly defending the Covenant of Works

(even against a certain revisionism of John Murray) extends it’s application beyond the Adamic Federal Head

to a single other particular situation, the nation of Israel as a Typology of the Kingdom.

Of course, in Kline, the Kingdom is a very important doctrine to «balance with the Covenants», so to speak.



Mho and please correct me if I’m wrong here:

The understanding in Federal Theology may have often been detrimental of the 

«appropriate perception or formulation» of the Kingdom and tough, eventually, inconsistent 

with a correct exegesis of the Law. Take the Gospel of Mathew, for instance.

Therefore bringing an unnecessary problematic to the right place of the Law in / with the Covenant of Grace.



In my humble opinion as that framework was been forgotten, a weakening in the necessary tension 

between Law and Grace, took place in Reformed thought. 


An example is how Murray, cutting the relation of the Adamic administration with the Mosaic law, 

and merging the Mosaic into the Abrahamic Covenant, brought him to understate the Covenant of Works. 


Of course already with Barth(ians), later Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd,...and now the Federal Vision(aries),

that weakness has gained a dangerous momentum. 



Realizing the correct place of the Kingdom Typology in the Covenants, also clarifies how

Moses, being a type of the second Adam, Christ, constitutes a Federal Head for the Nation of Israel.


_and were all *baptized unto Moses *in the cloud and in the sea._

1 Corinthians10:2

emphasis mine

So, by inference of _two Adams, two covenants of works_, as Kline states it,

the economy (the translation of oikonomia as dispensation would surely appeal more to Kline's critics : ) 

of the Mosaic Law is a Covenant of Works, as far as it applies to the Nation.

Simultaneously in Redemptive History, the Covenant of Grace continues, as far as individual salvation is concerned.



_If one begins with grace, on the pretense of avoiding "legalism" then one will not rightly understand grace _

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635, Leeuwarden - 1711, Rotterdam)




.

-----Added 12/13/2008 at 03:36:17 EST-----

to those who would like to read Meredith Kline (1922-2007)

this site provides several articles 

Meredith_Kline_Online

and link below to download the PDF of the complete book

Meredith G. Kline – Kingdom Prologue . Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal World View.

Two Age Press 
418 pages.
2000

http://www.god-centered.com/resources/kingdomprologue.pdf


.

-----Added 12/13/2008 at 03:56:09 EST-----

On the same year of 2007 also departed

Herman Ridderbos (1909, Oosterend – 2007, Kampen, the Netherlands)

author of the very central book on: quote

_how closely are related the thought of the Covenant and that of the coming of the 

Kingdom of God, and also how completely God carries through His plan of salvation 

in the revelation of His Kingdom. _

page 23 of


The Coming of the Kingdom

Paperback
588 pages
P & R Publishing
ISBN: 9780875524085

synopsis below

The Coming of the Kingdom :: Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) :: 20th Century Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians


.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 14, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Just skimming this thread it seems to me that a key distinction is being missed in the discussion. It looks to me as if everyone here is speaking of republication as being related to the individual in Israel, and then getting worked up over its implications for soteriology.
> 
> From what I was taught regarding republication during my time at WSCAL, and from what I read on the issue in both Witsius and Turretin, the republication doctrine is discussing the law as given to Israel on a national level, and as a national covenant. It has to do with Israel as a national entity, and not so much the individual Israelite.
> 
> ...



You might have skimmed past where I noted that I respect some of those who call the Mosaic Covenant a republication of the CoW. My objection to the term is not to quibble over terms because I know what some mean by it. I do, however, think that labels have pedagogical consequences and I believe that some people get the impression that the Law (as delivered by Moses) is against the Promise (contra Paul himself). I also believe that former OPC minister, Lee Irons, represents the worst of where this line of thinking can lead.

I don't claim to be a Scholar and I'm still learning but I appreciate Calvin's discussion on the Law where he demonstrates that the principal and intended purpose of the Law is in its 3rd use. I obviously believe that the righteousness that attains to God cannot be found in the obedience to the Law but that line of thinking is endemic to the unregenerate as Paul points out and Calvin eloquently elaborates.

I believe the Law's true intent is to reveal the righteousness of God. The reaction to this righteousness is deterimed by what God has done to you in regeneration. It is the difference of reaction between a son and an enemy. Calling it a republication of the CoW presents the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was delivered to enemies while David represents the song of the redeemed heart that does not hate the righteousness therein but loves it.

Finally, after reading Calvin recently, I'm interested to read how unabashedly he is willing to note that the Law actually sanctifies the redeemed man. I hear, far too often, that the Law can do nothing but condemn from those who hold to this paradigm. Perhaps that's not what was intended by those who first coined this phrase but some of the most prominent proponents today effectively negate the third use altogether and its role in training the conscience.

As I said, I respect those who have used the term but I believe the term itself has given rise to ideas that are foreign to Reformed Theology and its proper placement of the Law. I actually find myself wondering whether some think that the WLC's exposition of the Ten Commandments has any validity given the Law/Gospel distinction that is articulated.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> One can have a constancy in the CoW without Republication. Fisher's _Marrow of Modern Divinity_ describes this well. In fact the CoW is still firmly in place for all outside Christ now, even though no one (I believe) would argue that the New Covenant is (in any sense) a republication of the CoW.
> 
> The CoW continues on from the Garden; it does not _need_ republication. I would argue that making the Mosaic Covenant a republication creates far more problems than it solves (not the least of which is pitting the OT against the NT).



Hopefully, we all agree that the COW and the COG go forth in the flow of Redemptive History.

While, being myself in favour of the Klinean interpretation of the Mosaic Law as a 

Kingdom Typological expression of the prelapsarian Covenant of Works, celebrated with Adam.


I must urge us all, to defend the right hermeneutic of Hosea 6:7

_But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant. _


Not an easy task, as it’s under several fires, even by erroneous translations (KJV included) of «man» or «men»


Well, concerning the Mosaic Law being a Republication of the COW, subscribed by Fesko, VanDrunen et al

Sproul seems to find it the right figure, carrying no antagonism between OT and NT 

and he grounds himself heavily on both Scripture and Herman Witsius.

*R. C. Sproul *– link below

*The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?*

Reformation Theology: The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?


But even then, Sproul starts in a kind of vague defensive terminology using at first the word _*Repetition*_ 

and stating, quote: _*seems to be a sort of *republication of the covenant of works. Of course *it is not identical *_

emphasis mine

So Pastor Greco, it would be very useful *if you could please develop further *on Fisher 

and how you see this problematic of the Mosaic Law as a Republication of the COW


Edward Fisher - THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY - 1782

link below to the complete work online 

The Marrow of Modern Divnity



After my last post I must add, in due justice, that the contribution of John Murray

for the doctrine of double Imputation, on Romans 5 and consequently to Covenant Theology, is priceless.


And I would say, not less to the vital presence of the Covenant of Works

in the proper understanding of the Ordo Salutis.


So definitely we must hold firm to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness in Justification Sola Fide.

Because, Justification (the article by which the Church stands or falls, as Luther called it)

faces a double threat, as in this particular NPP and FV

are in alliance against Sound and Historic Reformed Doctrine.



So in this times of controversy, when Federal Vision(aries) unworthily 

have tried to take hold of the legacy of John Murray, to suit their own twisted agenda, 

it seems truly providential, that Murray was the 

privileged receptor of the renowned deathbed telegram:


_I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it._

John Gresham Machen



.


----------



## RTaron (Dec 14, 2008)

> Calling it a republication of the CoW presents the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was delivered to enemies while David represents the song of the redeemed heart that does not hate the righteousness therein but loves it.



Good point Rich. I share your other points below regarding the general drift that this doctrine can take a church. 

I believe proponents of this doctrine actually take away the Holiness and righteousness of God by inventing a new kind of covenant of works where you are not judged by a *perfect perpetual obedience *to God's commandments. They maintain that Israel was given the land due to their obedience to the Sinai Covenant which was a republication of the CoW. If you lack *perfect and perpetual obedience*, then you lack a covenant of works. The Scripture admits no in between stage between works and grace. 


> Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.






> I actually find myself wondering whether some think that the WLC's exposition of the Ten Commandments has any validity given the Law/Gospel distinction that is articulated.


I agree, thanks, Rich


----------



## nicnap (Dec 14, 2008)




----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

RTaron said:


> I believe proponents of this doctrine actually take away the Holiness and righteousness of God by inventing a new kind of covenant of works where you are not judged by a *perfect perpetual obedience *to God's commandments.



Well I don’t think that the «expression» of the COW in the Decalogue, in sight of Israel’s recurrent disobedience,

would either deny that «replication» of the COW, or bring an Antinomian compromise to it.

Actually there is that requirement of a perfect and permanent obedience, as you well state, 

both by the COW and by its particular «representation» on the Mosaic Law.


_For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all _ James 2:10 NKJV


In fact the risk is not an antinomian, but a legalistic, in the danger of the fallen individual 

seeking to be justified through an hopeless attempt to keep all the Mosaic Law.


Enough to say, being the epistle to the Galatians a Scripture who gives us such a clear light on this.

So mainly the question we are dealing with is:


_*What purpose then does the law serve? *_ Galatians 3:19 NKJV


Here is the antithesis between the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic Covenants

or the Covenant of Promise and the Covenant of Works and its requirement to perfect obedience.


So I believe both always coexist, one for the Nation and the other for Individual Salvation.

(as in fact coexist, the COW for individual reprobation of the unbeliever, thus being outside the COG)


The Mosaic Covenant, as a Suzerainty Treaty, between God and the Nation, 

with Moses as its Mediator and its Federal Head, certainly requires no less than perfect obedience.

So no incoherence there of being also a «republication» of the COW.


_When Moses went and told the people *all *the LORD's words and laws, they responded with *one* voice: 

*Everything *the LORD has said we will do. Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.(…)

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, This is the Blood of the Covenant 

that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words._

Exodus 24:3-8 KJV

emphasis mine


As for the Promise, as the fulfilment of that requirement by imputed righteousness

is for the Individual salvation under the Covenant of Grace 


_just as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. _

Galatians 3:6 NKJV



Chapter 2: Sinai and Zion: a Tale of Two Covenants

From the 3rd volume of the Tetralogy of Michael S. Horton: 

Covenant and Salvation, Union with Christ

Westminster John Knox Press 2007 
ISBN: 0664231632

has a very thorough treatment of this matter.


.


----------



## RTaron (Dec 14, 2008)

Cesar, thanks for responding. I read and re-read your post, but I can't pick up on your meaning. Sorry, maybe a language barrier. or just my thick head. 

What do your mean by Covenant of Works? Is there any mercy?


----------



## discipulo (Dec 15, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> The Law Is Not of Faith .Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant
> 
> Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, David VanDrunen
> 
> ...






RTaron said:


> Cesar, thanks for responding. I read and re-read your post, but I can't pick up on your meaning. Sorry, maybe a language barrier. or just my thick head.
> 
> What do your mean by Covenant of Works? Is there any mercy?




Hi Rick 

Thank you for bearing with me and I apologize if I was not clear.

The question on the thread has been if the Mosaic Law is a republication of

the Covenant of Works, celebrated with prelapsarian Adam.

R C Sproul affirms it is, and answers your question concerning mercy, this he makes both appealing 

to Herman Witsius on the Decalogue, as a repetition of the Covenant of Works 

and also clarifying Witisus rather strict explanation.

quote from

*The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?*

R. C. Sproul

_A Republication of Works to point to Christ: Thus far it would seem that Witsius might hold to a 

pure covenant of works, *absent of any grace*, yet *this is also not his view. *

He states that this *republication of the covenant of works *

was not repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with Israelites,

in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation._

Reformation Theology: The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

_emphasis mine_



For the Israelites they should seek for mercy, justification and salvation in the Grace of God,

through faith - as present in the Abrahamic Covenant - an expression of the 

Covenant of Grace in the flow of Redemptive History.



Concerning the Covenant of Works (WCF VII 1,2) celebrated with Adam

also called Covenant of Life (Larger Cathechism question 20) 

_upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience,_ as you had mentioned



attached is a PDF with the complete

Chapter II Of the Contracting Parties in the Covenant of Works

from Herman Witsius - the Economy of the Covenants between God and Man.

Hardcover: 959 pages 
Publisher: P & R Publishing
ISBN 0875528708

also quite useful as a reading guide is

An Analysis of Herman Witsius's "The Economy of the Covenants"

Patrick Ramsey & Joel R. Beeke

Publisher: Mentor Books 
ISBN: 9781892777225



Hoping this was helpful



.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 15, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I appreciate Calvin's discussion on the Law where he demonstrates that the principal and intended purpose of the Law is in its 3rd use. (...)
> 
> Finally, after reading Calvin recently, I'm interested to read how unabashedly he is willing to note that the Law actually sanctifies the redeemed man. I hear, far too often, that the Law can do nothing but condemn from those who hold to this paradigm. (...)



Thank you for bring back a greater view, this debate has been developing, for its own reasons, 

in a necessary narrow frame. But it’s always important to keep in mind the _Whole Counsel of God_.




Archlute said:


> Just skimming this thread it seems to me that a key distinction is being missed in the discussion. It looks to me as if everyone here is speaking of republication as being related to the individual in Israel, and then getting worked up over its implications for soteriology. (...)



With due respect, I must say, and speaking for myself, I have been stating exactly the opposite,

both on soteriology vs typology as its purpose, and individual vs nation as its object.



In my humble opinion the representation or republication of the COW in the Mosaic Law is not meant 

to the Individual, but to the Nation as a Typology of the Kingdom.

as far as I can read it from the great depth of Meredith Kline.


But affirming a republication of the COW in the Mosaic Law concerning the Nation

is not the same thing to say that the Law doesn’t apply in a multi fold way to the individual.

The purpose of God’s Law for the individual is crystal clear in Scripture, from cover to cover. 

And Witsius, also develops on that purpose for many pages,

while he clearly stands for a republication of the COW.

please see below scanned image attached of Chapter IV - on the Decalogue pages 183, 184 emphasis mine



Well, I found very interesting and quite clarifying the article on this matter

by Dr. Scott Clark 



So I only leave some paragraphs, encouraging the complete reading on Heidelblog:

quote


_When the older theologians spoke of republication I understand them to have been saying that 

the covenant of works was republished in the pedagogical use of the law to teach

Israel the greatness of his sin and misery and drive him to faith in Christ.

(…)

Clearly other writers in the same period did speak of republication of the covenant of works. 

Indeed, it’s republication was a major proof of the initial covenant of works.

(…)

Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works.

It’s a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works. _


*R. Scott Clark*

*Republication of the Covenant of Works*

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) « Heidelblog

Republication of the Covenant of Works (2) « Heidelblog

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (3) « Heidelblog




.


----------

