# Under the Law = Covenant of Works?



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

One of the reformed teachings that's very new to me is the teaching about the covenant of works. Coming from an environment that taught that we're not under the law, but under grace, this topic was never on the top 10 list of things to discuss.

Anyway, I'm studying the law and specifically now what it means to be 'under the law'. I'm asking myself the most elementary of questions (why am I a sinner, why is all the world accountable to God, what does it mean to be under grace instead of under the law, etc., etc).

Anyway, I'm wondering if the term 'under the law' is synonomous with the term 'covenant of works'. The question came to mind as I was reading and thinking about this passage:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 

Here's some of my thinking.

1. Jesus had to be born of a woman so he could be under the law. Since Jesus was brought under the law by birth, therefore everybody by birth comes under the law. 

2. Jesus was made under the law so He could redeem those who were under the law. Some of those he came to redeem lived before the law came by Moses (those who lived from Adam to Moses). Therefore, being under the law must be somehow more than just keeping the 10 commandments - the covenant of works? 

Is my thinking wrong?


----------



## kceaster (Apr 25, 2005)

*Bob...*

I would say you're certainly on the right track. One thing that has always helped me keep things fairly straight is the fact that God has always required His created beings to walk before Him as blameless. These are the exact words He spoke to Abram. Because He is Holy and Just, He has always given man the ablility to know His law. Why did Abel bring an acceptable sacrifice? Because he knew that without the shedding of blood there is no redemption. And without faith in God through His covenant, he had no hope of redemption, for without faith it is impossible to please God.

So, if Abel knew what pleased God, it is only because God revealed it to him. If Abel knew he was a miserable and poluted sinner, it is because God revealed the law to him. Therefore, every son of man is a miserable and poluted sinner who knows that he cannot stand in the presence of a holy God, yet he continually suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.

Also, if there is no one righteous, that means that there is law and works in the basis of life for man. In other words,, man from the beginning is unrighteous according to the law. Therefore, he must work to gain his redemption in the sight of God. He must become righteous in order to be saved. However, man can never be righteous in his own work because of the stain of original sin, added to the imperfection of one's own particular sins. Therefore, the only way to be made righteous is to be given the righteousness of another, namely Christ.

In this way, man from birth is either a member of the covenant of works, endeavoring to please God in the performance of his righteous acts, which will never justify him; or he is a member of the covenant of grace in which the righteous acts of another, namely Christ, are imputed to him and accounted to him as righteousness, thereby justifying him.

But in seeing what you saw in the Galatians passage, I think you already have the basic understanding of this.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

Also, regarding our now not being under the law but under grace:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 

When Paul says, "shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace", is that another way of saying "are we no longer expected to try and live by the law, since we're not under the law..."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 25, 2005)

Your dead on Bob! I would again encourage you to read the Marrow of Modern Divinity. It deals that that very question you raise. The only distinction I would make, and the Marrow does too, is that we are always under the law. The distinction is how. For man in Adam, we are under the law as a covenant of works. For the man brought into union with Christ in the covenant of grace, we are under the law as a rule of life or standard of conduct.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 25, 2005)

The way I understand it vaguely right now is that we are all "under the law", i.e. under the CoW, by birth. The Law of Moses was basically a more specific outline of God's requirements and commands of His people to expose our shortcomings even more, and help point us even more to the coming Messiah that would crush Sin and Satan for those who believe.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> Kevin wrote:
> ...Because He is Holy and Just, He has always given man the ablility to know His law. Why did Abel bring an acceptable sacrifice? Because he knew that without the shedding of blood there is no redemption. And without faith in God through His covenant, he had no hope of redemption, for without faith it is impossible to please God.
> 
> So, if Abel knew what pleased God, it is only because God revealed it to him. If Abel knew he was a miserable and poluted sinner, it is because God revealed the law to him. Therefore, every son of man is a miserable and poluted sinner who knows that he cannot stand in the presence of a holy God, yet he continually suppresses the truth in unrighteousness...


I'd never thought about that before...but will. Thanks.



> Patrick wrote:
> Your dead on Bob! I would again encourage you to read the Marrow of Modern Divinity. It deals that that very question you raise. The only distinction I would make, and the Marrow does too, is that we are always under the law. The distinction is how. For man in Adam, we are under the law as a covenant of works. For the man brought into union with Christ in the covenant of grace, we are under the law as a rule of life or standard of conduct.


 Thanks, Patrick. I found the Marrow of Modern Divinity here and will start reading it soon. 



> Gabriel wrote:
> The way I understand it vaguely right now is that we are all "under the law", i.e. under the CoW, by birth. The Law of Moses was basically a more specific outline of God's requirements and commands of His people to expose our shortcomings even more, and help point us even more to the coming Messiah that would crush Sin and Satan for those who believe.


 Thanks for your response and for helping me think through this. It seems a great void needs to be filled in my understanding of things related to the law, especially since many over the years have tried to stress the distinctions between the law (for Israel) and grace (for the church) and between Israel and the church. I praise the Lord for the good things I've learned and the good people I've known over the years in dispensational churches, but at the same time I'm bummed as it feels like so much time was wasted (25+ years) learning next to nothing about the law, its demands, its beauty, etc. 

[enough grumbling]
Continuing to learn and explore...
[/enough grumbling]

[Edited on 4-25-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

I was looking for somewhere online that has Fisher's book in one file rather than separated into sections (does anybody know where I could find this), and found that his book had a fair amount of controversy. Interesting.


----------



## Philip A (Apr 25, 2005)

Good discussion so far.


Bob,

Not to sound like a broken record, but have you read Witsius yet?


Kevin's federaltheology.org has Witsius on the COW online, as well as a number of helpful articles. Witsius, Book I, Chapter IX is priceless on this issue.

[Edited on 4-25-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Bob,
> Not to sound like a broken record, but have you read Witsius yet?


No, not yet, for two reasons. 
1. I'm a very slow reader and haven't gotten to it yet. 
2. I want to enjoy being a baptist just a li-i-i-ittle bit longer before reading it. (I've heard rumors about that book)



> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Kevin's federaltheology.org has Witsius on the COW online, as well as a number of helpful articles. Witsius, Book I, Chapter IX is priceless on this issue.


Thanks. For now, I do much better reading excerpts from a book, rather than reading the entire 1000 page (or whatever) book. That'll come in time.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 25, 2005)

Bob,

This also might help. Its from Chapter 19 on the Law of God, sec. 1 & 2:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

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:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

[1] GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. JOB 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

[2] JAM 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. ROM 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 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. DEU 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me. EXO 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.

[3] MAT 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 25, 2005)

I praise the Lord for the good things I've learned and the good people I've known over the years in dispensational churches, but at the same time I'm bummed as it feels like so much time was wasted (25+ years) learning next to nothing about the law, its demands, its beauty, etc. proverbs says the law is able to make the simple wise

[Edited on 04-23-2005 by noncomformist]


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 25, 2005)

that funny because i was raised dispinsational baptist, became a drug addict for 10 years,then became a charismatic,finally after the drugs cleared out of my brain and i learned how to study my bible,became a theonomist.Now when i grow up i want to be a theologan


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by noncomformist_
> I praise the Lord for the good things I've learned and the good people I've known over the years in dispensational churches, but at the same time I'm bummed as it feels like so much time was wasted (25+ years) learning next to nothing about the law, its demands, its beauty, etc. proverbs says the law is able to make the simple wise



Amen! and here's another passage I was reading last week that sort of paints a different picture as well:

Psa 19:7-10 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 

Its funny. I recall singing this passage as a chorus in churches, but I'm pretty sure they don't view the law that way.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Bob,
> 
> This also might help. Its from Chapter 19 on the Law of God, sec. 1 & 2:
> ...



Thanks for your help, Wayne. I appreciate it and will go into ponder mode.

It may just be me, but I have a tendancy to only want to use terms found in the Bible, at least until I'm fairly comfortable with the doctrine. It may be excess baggage I've picked up through the years, or just a desire to someday be able to explain to others why I believe what I believe in terms they'll understand. 

I run into that 'roadblock' when I read the first part of paragraph I and it mentions the covenant of works. I realize that its just a shorthand way of describing a doctrine, just like the teaching of the trinity. I'm sure the theologian who first coined the term had to spend a lot of time studying and praying to condense what he read in the scriptures to arrive at that term. Hopefully, as I learn, I'll be more convinced of the terms and will then feel more comfortable using them.

Anyway, for now, I'll just side-step the term and learn the doctrine behind it. 

Thanks again,
Bob


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

At Philip's suggestion, I printed out the excerpt from Witsius and started reading it. I was doing pretty good until I got to the fourth paragraph:


> IV. If the sinner who deserves punishment was not subject to the law, he could no longer sin, and therefore by one sin he would set himself free from, the danger of farther sinning; for where no law is binding, there is no transgression, no sin, which John defines to be the transgression of the law, 1 John iii. 4. But nothing can be imagined more absurd, than that man by sin has acquired an impeccability.



I agree with his last statement that nothing can be imagined more absurd, but what is he talking about in the previous sentences? Are there people he's addressing this to that actually think that way?


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 25, 2005)

Psa 119:97 MEM: Oh how I love Your Law! It is my meditation all the day. 
Psa 119:98 You make me wiser than my enemies by Your Commands; for they are forever mine. 
Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Your Testimonies are a meditation to me. 
Psa 119:100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep Your Precepts.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by noncomformist_
> Psa 119:97 MEM: Oh how I love Your Law! It is my meditation all the day.
> Psa 119:98 You make me wiser than my enemies by Your Commands; for they are forever mine.
> Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Your Testimonies are a meditation to me.
> Psa 119:100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep Your Precepts.


...and, on that note, I leave for my train. Thanks, Bob


----------



## Philip A (Apr 25, 2005)

> I agree with his last statement that nothing can be imagined more absurd, but what is he talking about in the previous sentences? Are there people he's addressing this to that actually think that way?



I believe this is where he is taking Arminius to task, where Arminius apparently asserted that, once the CoW was broken, man was no longer bound to the obedience that was part of the terms of the covenant. Witsius is weaving in the definition of sin from 1 John and carrying Arminius' statment to its logical conclusion, which of course is absurd. It is a _Reductio Ad Absurdum_ par excellance.

It's always a kick to see the old dead guys take on the men for whom errors are named. Witsuis and Turretin taking on Arminius and Amyrault, Fairbairn taking Darby to task in _Revelation of Law_, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2005)

> > IV. If the sinner who deserves punishment was not subject to the law, he could no longer sin, and therefore by one sin he would set himself free from, the danger of farther sinning; for where no law is binding, there is no transgression, no sin, which John defines to be the transgression of the law, 1 John iii. 4. But nothing can be imagined more absurd, than that man by sin has acquired an impeccability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > I agree with his last statement that nothing can be imagined more absurd, but what is he talking about in the previous sentences? Are there people he's addressing this to that actually think that way?
> ...


Thanks, Philip, for helping me see the context of his statement.

That little excerpt from Witsius' work was interesting to read. It made me want to read more, as he presented his case in such a logical fashion. He doesn't pull his punches with the Arminians, and I'd guess it'd be safe to say that he doesn't pull his punches either in those parts where he talks about baptist distinctives.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 26, 2005)

Was Jesus under the law, and at the same time, not under the law? 

(Galatians 4:4,5) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

(Galatians 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Was Jesus under the law, and at the same time, not under the law?


In His humanity he was certainly under the law. (Phil. 2:5-11, Rom. 8:1-4, in addition to the below quoted verse)


> (Galatians 4:4,5) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.





> (Galatians 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.


This refers to redeemed men, men delivered out of the covenant of works and brought into the covenant of grace. Redeemed men are led by the Spirit. Christ was also led by the Spirit but this was part of His annoiting to accomplish His task to redeem men.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > (Galatians 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
> ...


Yeah, that's how I've always thought about the verse as referring to redeemed men. As I looked at and was grouping all the verses about being under the law, the thought came to me that Jesus was certainly led by, and followed, the Spirit. And, you had mentioned about Marrow saying that we are always under the law (though also under grace). Putting those thoughts together, I thought, hmmm... 

So, before I move on, Jesus was only under the law, right?


And, another thought/question. Jesus had to become a man so he could redeem those who were under the law. As a man, he submitted himself to and fulfilled the requirements of the law. But what about his divinity? As God, was he under the law? Was it necessary? 

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 28, 2005)

I have a question about 1 Cor 15:22:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam *all* die, even so in Christ shall *all* be made alive.

Would this also be a valid way to translate it?

For as *all* in Adam die, even so *all* in Christ shall be made alive.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I have a question about 1 Cor 15:22:
> 
> 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam *all* die, even so in Christ shall *all* be made alive.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Mean Old Man (May 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> One of the reformed teachings that's very new to me is the teaching about the covenant of works. Coming from an environment that taught that we're not under the law, but under grace, this topic was never on the top 10 list of things to discuss.
> 
> Anyway, I'm studying the law and specifically now what it means to be 'under the law'. I'm asking myself the most elementary of questions (why am I a sinner, why is all the world accountable to God, what does it mean to be under grace instead of under the law, etc., etc).
> ...



Hey Bob, I don't know whether or not this has been mentioned in this thread (at least I didn't see it after a brief reading/skimming of the posts) but I do not think the terms _under the law_ and _covenant of works_ necessarily designate the same thing. Covenant Theology (sometimes called Federal Theology) uses the phrase _Covenant of Works_ to refer to the agreement God established with Adam before the fall. Covenant Theology teaches that after the fall, God established a _Covenant of Redemption_. All of the individual covenants that God established with man after the fall, including the Mosaic _Covenant of Law_ and the New Testament Covenan fall within the _Covenant of Redemption_. There is a book entitled _The Christ of the Covenants_ by O. Palmer Robertson that deals with this subject matter.

That said, I don't think your thinking is wrong as it relates to your comments concerning Jesus and being under the law. I just wanted to clarify what I understand concerning the _Covenant of Works_


----------



## blhowes (May 2, 2005)

Joey,
Thanks for your help and for your book recommendation. I appreciate it.



> _Originally posted by Mean Old Man_
> Covenant Theology teaches that after the fall, God established a *Covenant of Redemption*.


Did you mean to say Covenant of Grace, instead of Covenant of Redemption?


----------



## Arch2k (May 2, 2005)

Bob,

In The Christ of the Covenants, Robertson redefines the Covenant of Grace. He dubs it inconvieniently the Covenant of Redemption.

Confusing, but good to keep it in mind when speaking of the covenants.


----------



## blhowes (May 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Bob,
> 
> In The Christ of the Covenants, Robertson redefines the Covenant of Grace. He dubs it inconvieniently the Covenant of Redemption.
> ...


There oughta be a rule against that kind of stuff. Are the CTers just playing around with us baptists?? Ya study, study, study until ya think ya got it...then they redefine the terms!!!  (jk)

Thanks for the info,
Bob


----------



## Robin (May 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Poor, Bob! Actually, it's just the understanding of HOW covenant works is the thing...covenants overlap. Robertson's book is great, btw. Here is Dr. Scott Clark's site on classic covenant theology:

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Sentences.htm

Have fun!!



Robin


----------



## Mean Old Man (May 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> Did you mean to say Covenant of Grace, instead of Covenant of Redemption?



No, but I probably should have. My comments were based on my memory of a book I read a few years ago. As has been noted here, Robertson changes the terminology from _covenant of works/covenant of grace_ to _covenant of creation/covenant of redemption_ because of the limitations in the former terminology. So, while _covenant of grace_ and _covenant of redemption_ refer to the same thing, I suppose it is more proper to mention the former when speaking of the covenant that follows the _covenant of works_.


----------



## blhowes (May 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mean Old Man_
> No, but I probably should have. My comments were based on my memory of a book I read a few years ago. As has been noted here, Robertson changes the terminology from _covenant of works/covenant of grace_ to _covenant of creation/covenant of redemption_ because of the limitations in the former terminology. So, while _covenant of grace_ and _covenant of redemption_ refer to the same thing, I suppose it is more proper to mention the former when speaking of the covenant that follows the _covenant of works_.


So, bottom line is to keep God's covenants in mind during the study? Will do.


----------

