# Of Red Cats and Republication



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 21, 2012)

A PB member has posted a PB blog post suggesting that my views regarding the question of whether the Mosaic covenant was a "republication" of the covenant of works might have changed. 

I was unable to comment there so I will comment here.

*1) The ethics of the post.* I hadn't logged on to the PB for several days and when I did this AM I saw that I had two private messages asking whether this blog post was correct. It might have been helpful for the author of the post to write to ask whether my views have changed _before_ posting the hypothesis but since the post is up and public it seems to call for some sort of response. To the best of my limited knowledge I am not dead and since 80 bazillion spammers seem to be able to find my email address I'm surprised that the author of the blog post could not do so.

*2) My views.* To the best of my limited knowledge, my views have not changed. For anyone who knows the history of Reformed (covenant) theology, the idea that the Mosaic covenant was, in some sense, a re-statement of the covenant made with Adam before the fall, is entirely ordinary. 

*3) This history of the doctrine.* Through the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were several versions of the view expressed in a wide variety of ways. In no way did any of those views imply that the Mosaic covenant was not _also_ an administration of the covenant of grace or that justification under the Mosaic covenant was by works. The older Reformed writers spoke thus as a way of accounting for the relatively more legal quality of the Mosaic covenant relative to the Abrahamic and New covenants.

The suspicion with which all versions of the idea of the republication is an indicator of the degree to which we have become disconnected from our own tradition(s). Another explanation for the hostility that exists is the rise of dispensationalism. In react to Dispensationaism some of our theologians, in the 20th century, either ignored or rejected any doctrine of republication in the interests of asserting continuity between the old and new covenants. 

The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed faced a similarly radical disjunction in the form of the Anabaptist and Socinian movements, both of whom, in different ways, set the Old (in the broad sense) and New Testaments against each other. It is interesting, however, that the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians did not react the Anabaptists and Socinians by denying any connection whatever between Moses (Sinai) and Adam (the covenant of works).

One of the first places I encountered this allegedly dangerous doctrine of republication was in my study of Caspar Olevianus (d. 1587), one of the major Heidelberg theologians and a contributor to the Heidelberg Catechism. 

These themes are interwoven through his 1567 _Vester Grund_. He began with Adam as the federal head of humanity in whom the law was “implanted” as a matter of “human nature” and it was this law that was “repeated and renewed in God’s Commandments.” The law promised eternal life condition of perfect inward and outward obedience. He was working with the same ideas that would become the covenants of works and grace. In contrast with the legal covenant, the covenant of grace is found in the “Surety who completely satisfies the just judgment of God for us.” He described the creational law as the “knowledge of God naturally implanted” and “the work of the law by nature written on the heart” so that sin is “against the law of nature.” He identified the substance of the “law of nature” known by the Gentiles with the decalogue revealed to the Jews. The itself is righteous, but because humans are fallen in Adam and therefore corrupt, the law of nature, like the law of Moses, is adequate to convict but never to justify.

The theme of the republication of the creational law under Moses was closely related to his developing doctrine of a natural, legal, prelpsarian covenant. Indeed, his discussions of the creational law often move fluidly into discussions of the Mosaic law, which he described as the “_foedus legale_.” In his explanation of our inability to observe the Mosaic law, he correlated it to obligation to obey “the law of creation” (ius creationis) and then he moved immediately back to the discussion of the Mosaic law and circumcision. This natural obligation is written on human minds and on the two tables of the law. The law, whether published in creation, in the “natural pact,” or under Moses, demands perfect obedience and convicts the unrighteous of their sin and prepares them to hear the gospel and to receive it by faith.


Franciscus Junius (d. 1602) did essentially the same thing. Within the general framework of the unity of the covenant of grace, he described in some detail the legal, typological, and pedagogical aspects of the Mosaic covenant the “scope” of which was teach the Israelites to repent and to look forward to Christ.


Robert Rollock (d. 1598) also saw the creational law and covenant republished, under Moses, in the Decalogue, and as for Olevianus, this republication served as a proof of the existence of a prelapsarian covenant of works. This list could, of course, continue but this material is to appear in print sometime in the next decade or so (Dv).


Indeed, one of the oddest parts of the recent reaction against any version of the old doctrine of republication is that the classical authors regularly appealed to the legal character of the Mosaic covenant in order to prove the existence of the prelapsarian covenant of works. This connection helps explain why WCF ch 19 re-states ch 7 on the covenant of works and then moves, in the next section, to the law under the Mosaic covenant. That's why Thomas Boston said that it was impossible for him to understand how some people could not see the doctrine of republication in ch 19.


Another partial explanation for the reaction against republication is the suspicion with which the historic and confessional doctrine of the prelapsarian covenant of works has been viewed since Barth's rejection of it. It's not the case that everyone who rejects the covenant of works is a Barthian but it is true that Barth's influence changed the plausibility of the covenant of works. Rhetorically it seemed much better to be in favor of "grace" rather than "works" in a time when "works" was being characterized as "legalistic" and "grace" was being characterized positively.

3) The blog post however is a quite useful illustration of the problem of the _a priori_, i.e., stuff one knows _must_ be true before one gets to the facts. If one _knows _(_a priori_), apart from the facts, that the next cat one sees will be red, it's likely that the next cat seen will appear red even if, the empirical evidence _actually _suggests that the cat is a tabby. In this case the _a priori_ seems to be that there is only one way to say something and thus, if the form of expression changes then the doctrine must have changed.

No, the cat is still a tabby.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 21, 2012)

For the record, blog posts (as well as forum posts for that matter) represent the views of the author regardless of the status they have on this board. That said, Scott, I wonder if you you might allow me to ask you a few clarifying questions.


R. Scott Clark said:


> To the best of my limited knowledge, my views have not changed. For anyone who knows the history of Reformed (covenant) theology, the idea that the Mosaic covenant was, in some sense, a re-statement of the covenant made with Adam before the fall, is entirely ordinary.


I assumed you had not changed your views. I think some people assume that when they hear you affirming one thing that you are denying another. The issue is a nuanced one so I appreciate the nuance you add here to help people understand what you're affirming (and not denying).

That said, could you clarify for me whether there is a distinction historically as to how some qualify the idea that the Mosaic law was "in some sense" a republication of the CoW? I think it is axiomatic that all Reformed people have to acknowledge one sense that this is true. That is to say that the Decalogue, as you note, is a more explicit statement of the law written on men's hearts.

What I have read (and in my interactions with more modern variants) the "sense" of the republication that I think might be new is that republication is seen to be a CoW with respect to the Nation and the Land. That is to say, that modern variants seem to create not only a sense of the CoW but state that a real CoW exists between the Nation and the Land - perfect obedience or you lose the land.

In other words, if all republication of the CoW implies is that the Decalogue (in a sense) is an explicit recapitulation of the moral law written on human hearts then that's not very controversial. As you noted, the perfection of the Law has been understood to be in the _service_ of the CoG to drive men to Christ (under the OT sacraments) but was never intended to be the way of salvation. It seems some modern republication theories see the land promise as a "Do this and live..." which would then seem to place a portion of the intention of the Mosaic Covenant (with respect to the nation) outside of the CoG and truly make it a CoW with respect to the nation as a whole. That is to say, the individuals might have the Gospel but the Nation is expected to live and do and there's no Gospel for the Nation as an entity.

I might be stating it crudely. My intention is fraternal dialog and it would be good to get your sense of how accurately I'm describing the concern and the historic support for the idea that the Nation itself was under a CoW.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 21, 2012)

Rich,



> That said, could you clarify for me whether there is a distinction historically as to how some qualify the idea that the Mosaic law was "in some sense" a republication of the CoW?



I think Brent Ferry has found something like 17 different versions in the British Isles alone in the 17th century. Hence the expression, "in some sense." 



> I think it is axiomatic that all Reformed people have to acknowledge one sense that this is true. That is to say that the Decalogue, as you note, is a more explicit statement of the law written on men's hearts.



I wish that were so. I take it as so but it seems that, for a lot of Reformed folk presently, it's axiomatic that the Mosaic law could not have been a re-statement or republication of the covenant of works in any sense whatever--and this despite the rich variety of approaches to republication within the Reformed tradition(s).



> What I have read (and in my interactions with more modern variants) the "sense" of the republication that I think might be new is that republication is seen to be a CoW with respect to the Nation and the Land. That is to say, that modern variants seem to create not only a sense of the CoW but state that a real CoW exists between the Nation and the Land - perfect obedience or you lose the land.



It's true that this view exists but it's not particularly new. This view was held in the 17th century by orthodox men. I suspended the survey above in the early 17th century there's more to the story. See Ferry's chapter (and ThM thesis). 

It's probably not entirely correct or perhaps potentially misleading to describe this view using the adjective "real." "Typological" would be more accurate. It is thought to be a covenant of works but not on the same order as the prelapsarian covenant since it's after the fall and under grace. Nevertheless, the tenure in the land and Israel's status as a national people is said to be premised on works as a twofold illustration that looks back to Adam and looks forward to Christ.

Some advocates of this view do tend to stress the legal aspect to the exclusion of grace, at least rhetorically. Others, on the other hand, would try to account both rhetorically and theologically for the covenant of grace.

For myself, I cannot see how, after the fall, the Israelite national covenant could have been _strictly_ legal since a) they were fallen; b) they broke the covenant before Moses made it back down the mountain and nevertheless God entered into a typological relation with them. That God continued any relation with them has to be described as grace. Further, I think there's a strong Reformed consensus in the classical period that the Mosaic covenant was also an administration of the covenant of grace. I don't think is is really in doubt. It is a confessional doctrine. 

Nevertheless, the Lord did speak to Israel as if their national status and land tenure was premised on obedience. This is why so many, including Calvin, have described the Mosaic as a legal covenant. 

I think that the recognition of Israel's _typological_ role in an ostensibly legal covenant relative to the land and national status while simultaneously functioning as an administration of the covenant of grace is fair attempt to do justice to both the principles of grace and works under Moses-David-prophets. 

I can see, however, why that account might bother some so I certainly wouldn't make it a measure of orthodoxy but neither do I think it should be demonized (e.g., as Pelagian) the way it has sometimes been.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2012)

First off, Dr. Clark I truly meant no disrespect to you. Concerning the ethics of the post, well, it is what it is. I have tried to contact you before and I am not a spammer. We can just leave it at that. As for the post I am truly working this out as I keep wrestling through this issue and updating my thoughts. I admittedly told everyone on that Blog that I should be questioned and you held in esteem. I am sincerely asking questions and making charges that I might grow in understanding and help others in the same pursuit. Thanks for your patience.

As you know I come from a very inquisitive and challenging background. I am not one to just accept what any historical writer says without much meditation on a topic. I come from a background that dichotomized law and gospel so much that I remained a Reformed Baptist for years and argued for the Republication issue in the vein that a Covenant of Works was reconstituted in some form (More like John Owens or Samuel Bolton's views). I just don't see it any longer as I have noted. I also argued that there was no law involved with the Gospel of Grace in the New Covenant at one time. It was totally unconditional in my estimation. The Gospel was totally void of the implications of law in my understanding. I find that is much of what is being taught today as a modern definition of Gospel. In Fact, I just had a talk with a young man this week that couldn't understand that we are punished as Christians for disobeying the Law of God. He had a problem putting that together since Christ took our full punishment on the Cross, as he put it. This view of Gospel without Grace and Law is leading to an antinomianism in increments. I believe it is dangerous. 




R. Scott Clark said:


> Nevertheless, the Lord did speak to Israel as if their national status and land tenure was premised on obedience. This is why so many, including Calvin, have described the Mosaic as a legal covenant.



I see no problem with legality in a Covenant. That doesn't make it a Covenant of Works though in my estimation. The above describes what membership in the Covenant Community looks like in both Testaments. The Church under the Covenant of Grace's administration looks just like this for us as individuals and for our Churches corporately. It doesn't resemble anything like the prelapsarian Covenant of Works. This picture looks like the New and the Old Covenant Dr. Clark. Remember Chapter 2 of Revelation where the Candlestick would be removed (Corporate) . Do you remember the member of the church at Corinth that was handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and in the Second book that member is restored back into fellowship after repentance (Individual). This is New Covenant Community living and abiding. It isn't just Old Covenant. It doesn't seem it can be a Covenant of Works reinstated as these things are doctrines and practices of the New Covenant and Old Covenant as Administrations of the Covenant of Grace. That is precisely why I posted a link to this blog as I believe this is confusing language. 




> Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/wcf-republication-769/




I have no problem with republication as stated in the fact that the Law is restated. But as you noted it has taken on many different colors, views. My charge is that the Law is not a Covenant of Works in the Sinaitic Covenant because it can't be used the same way as it was in the Prelaparian Covenant. 

So back to my original question. Is the Law in Paragraph 2 of Chapter 19 a republication of the Covenant of Works as it was in the Prelapsarian Covenant or is it different? You seemed to suggest something quite different to me in a discussion we had months ago. From what I am hearing now in your revised blog and what you seem to be saying above you seem to be backing away from saying that this law in Paragraph 2 is the Covenant of Works republished (reconstituted). That is how I was hearing you say it before. I may have been mistaken but I did understand you as putting forth the teaching that was discussed in this blog from our discussions and previous writings. I just think you are sounding a bit different now. Maybe a bit more clearer. Maybe the cat is still a tabby but it appears that there is a dye or (peroxide) bleach being applied that wasn't there before. I tried to use bleach one time. I learned you use peroxide. That is part of the problem with this discussion. Words mean things. And I can misapply them as I have done before. Maybe the sun is bleaching the coat of the tabby to make it look a little more adaptable to the color it should look. I am still having problems with many of the things that have been written in the past and I am still trying to sift through them to help the young men I know and myself to avoid such confusion. 

In two of your bullet points of the Theses you state that the Mosaic in regards to one thing is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. I used that terminology as a Reformed Baptist who plainly saw this Covenant as a subservient Covenant. But in relation to the law it was a Covenant of Works. Is this what you are saying or implying below?



> *With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, for pedagogical reasons (Galatians 3:23-4:7), a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.*
> *With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.*
> *The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace (2 Kings 13:23) but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical, pedagogical, covenant of works (Genesis 12:7; Exodus 6:4; Deuteronomy 29:19-29; 2 Kings 17:6-7; Ezekiel 17).*


*

I have a question. Do you affirm that the Mosaic is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace or do you believe it has some form of mixture with a Covenant of Works? Do you affirm that the Mosaic Covenant is a Subservient Covenant? I just want to know where you stand on this issue. 

Thanks for your help in allowing me to peer behind your thoughts. *


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 22, 2012)

Oh, and another thing, I thought I had my blog set up so I could get comments. I have a few. I do have to approve them first. But I do have it set up so I can receive comments I believe. If not I need to know how to set it up for them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 22, 2012)

Scott,

Thanks for the reply. Very useful.


R. Scott Clark said:


> See Ferry's chapter (and ThM thesis).


I'll look for it.


R. Scott Clark said:


> Some advocates of this view do tend to stress the legal aspect to the exclusion of grace, at least rhetorically. Others, on the other hand, would try to account both rhetorically and theologically for the covenant of grace.


I think it is in the rhetoric where party spirit troubles begin. I think folks tend to draw battle lines and tend to refuse to acknowledge any spectrum of belief over where that sense lies. While there is a tendency to accuse of antinomianism from one side there is a tendency as well to brand the other as legalistic or conflating law and gospel. I think one of the things you might have failed to note in your initial post is that part of the problem stems, therefore, from the rhetoric of some who are identified with a republication view who not only seem to rhetorically repudiate the Law as an administration of the CoG but also label those who fall on a different portion of the spectrum as non-Reformed in their law/gospel views. 

I think there are also those who completely cross the line (on both sides) but it's hard to sort out because the rhetoric that typifies the conversation doesn't allow for careful nuance. Within the last 12 years I've seen both extremes on this from Lee Irons as an exemplar of one extreme and the Federal Vision as an exemplar of another. Rhetorically, the dialog gets pushed to the point where the parties who are within the orthodox spectrum feel compelled to defend what otherwise would be rebuked if the nuance on the issue was maintained but the excesses which preceded discussion on these particular cases make it difficult for the issues to be clearly seen and it takes much longer than it otherwise would. I think we're still dealing with a delay in disciplining some FV men in the PCA because some hide behind the skirts of the rhetorical excess. I think it would help the case of discipline if both sides more clearly acknowledged that not all views that differ from them on the spectrum are outside the bounds of orthodoxy and it would strengthen the ability for Church men to deal with the cases that fall outside that spectrum.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts. I know of another project that's coming up (hopefully) that I pray will serve to advance the dialog in a more positive direction. I would ask more questions but I have to exhort this AM.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 22, 2012)

I think one of the problems is that there was (is?) confusion -or debate among the Reformed about the status of the CoW and Man's relationship to it after the Fall vs pre the Fall.

Dabney brings this out in his Systematic Theology 



> We conclude then, that the two methods of obtaining an
> adoption of life cannot be compounded; that, namely, by a probation
> of works; and that by gospel grace. The adoption of
> the one must exclude the other. This conclusion raises at
> ...



Dabney's conclusion on Man's relationship to the CoW post-Fall is:


> The obvious statement is this: The transgression
> has indeed terminated the sinner's right to the sanction of
> reward ; but it has not terminated his obligation to obey, nor to
> the penal sanction.(p 637)



This_ last_ state of things may be reflected in the Mosaic settlenment. The law is restated, as summarised in the Ten Commandments. The judicial law to an extent reflects the penal sanction of the law, especially the exemplary use of the death penalty for presumptious sin which the Mosaic sacrificial system couldn't cope with, not being perfect. The sacrifices speak of God's grace to sinners in Christ. The temporal rewards of tenure in the Land and prosperity in the Land remind us of God's gracious rewards to sinners who put their trust in Christ and seek to be obedient by God's grace.

Where does this leave the idea of OT Israel as a type of Christ under the CoW? This area of typology is multifaceted and complex. OT Israel is a type of both Christ and His Church, but the leaders of OT Israel, the priests, kings and prophets are _more peculiarly and distinctly_types of Christ. Although the kings, prophets and priests were part of Israel, from Israel, and one with Israel, they were also different to Israel because the were the representative heads of Israel. In the New Testament although Christ is part of His Church and one with His Church and comes from among His Jewish and Christian brethren, He is also distinct and different from them, being the anointed Head, Representative and Surety of the Covenant.

So the typology of the idea that because Christ fulfilled things for us in a CoW, ergo the whole people of OT Israel must have been under some kind of Covenant of Works, may be flawed.

Better to look at the typology of how Israel's anointed leaders, being _in a more specific sense typological of Christ in the CoW,_ failed to be adequate representatives of Israel whereas Christ succeeded.

In what sense, for example - if at all - was the OT High Priest in his actions as High Priest, being typological of Christ, operating in a "typological Covenant of Works" ?


----------



## mvdm (Jul 23, 2012)

In looking at the blog post, I did not discern any change in Clark's position.

Lest anyone be confused by the suggestion that "republication" is just standard historic Reformed theology, the controversy exists because folks are seeing the modern "cats" as introducing a novel view of the Mosaic. Some dead theologian's use of the term "restatement" or "republication" does not mean they were speaking of the same thing folks today are advocating. 

The following resources help show that in general, the majority consensus was against republication and the minority republicationist view had more in common with views held by the Lutherans and the Amyraldians. 

The following resources are helpful. 

The first is an aggregation of historical views of the Mosaic: 

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/

Specific reviews of the modern republication thesis are discussed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/venemas-review-law-not-faith-64085/

http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf

Katek


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 23, 2012)

It's difficult to think of even the OT High Priest being in a typological or ceremonial or symbolical covenant of works, when we know that he offered sacrifices for himself as well as the people, but it is at least the case that we know that the behaviour of the priests, kings, and prophets, the anointed leaders, including their behaviour with regard to ceremonial and under-age typological law, was representatively significant for the nation of Israel, in a way that the behaviour of our church leaders isn't for us - or political leaders, if we are to go furth of Israel - because they pointed to the Anointed One who was to come. 

But typology can be multi-faceted, because it is imperfect and shadowy by nature and not everything that needed to be said in the types could be said at once. We see this for example in the different types of sacrifices that anticipated Christ in Leviticus 1-7.

So maybe there are some aspects of the anointed leaders and their offices that typologically point to Christ as being in a CoW on behalf of His people.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 24, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark
> See Ferry's chapter (and ThM thesis).
> I'll look for it.



You can find Ferry's thesis here http://www.mtairyopc.org/mtairyopc.org/Pastor_files/Ferry'sThesis.pdf


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 25, 2012)

Since moral perfection was not possible and since it was a corporate command for obedience, I am just wondering what the criteria or the measuring rod for obedience was if you believe that the Mosiac economy had a COW element. It also seems as Mr Snyder pointed out earlier that the notion of corporate apostasy and corporate punishment carry over to the NC, so I do not understand where the Mosiac dispensation differs dramatically in form from this. I understand the greater revelation of the law given at Sinai could both point to the failure at Eden and the need for the Messiah but what trips me up most about the notion of a republication of the COW is how it would be graded? I am just a lay person and a young one at that and I am not trying to challenge anyone these are just honest questions I have.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 25, 2012)

Hi Eric,

I look forward to hearing Clark's response to your question regarding the measuring rod of obedience. In the meantime, I have found A.W. Pink's answer to your question helpful (he was a proponent of republication). Subheadings here are mine:


> *Pink : The Sinaitic Covenant*
> We write, therefore, for those who desire answers to such questions as the following:
> 
> What was the precise nature of the covenant which God entered into with Israel at Sinai?
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2012)

Witsuis needs to be understood in context a little better Brandon. Maybe our understanding of Owen does also. I am being lead to read his Preface of Hebrews in Volume 17 to help me understand his whole thought and then read his underlying contributions. I am not so sure either Witsius or Owen are being presented in a full light. I just read his Hebrews commentary on Chapter 6 yesterday and much thought is left out in the modernized version. It is much more complex than the simple statements that are being made in the updated versions. He definitely held to a view of the Covenant of Grace that isn't coming out as clear in the thought of many good men. We need to present things in a little better and more full Context here in the light of their whole writings. 

I do know that it seems the Subservient view of the Covenant was rejected at the Westminster Assembly. WCF 7.6 seems to indicate this. And that is the issue I am trying to get at. What is that view and why was it rejected? 

Here is a part of Witsuis.




> This national covenant was typical of the new covenant. It is noteworthy that it did not typify or symbolize the CW. Rather, it pointed forward to the new covenant by the giving of the law in outward form only. The difference or contrast between the MC and the new covenant is not found in the condition (i.e. one of works, the other faith), but in the power to keep the covenant. The Israelites had the law written on external tablets of stone. Such a law provided no ability to trust and obey the Lord. It was not efficacious in the lives of the Israelites. Consequently, they broke the covenant via their apostasy. In this way, the MC looked forward to the new covenant, wherein the law would be written on the heart, providing the strength of covenant keeping. Once again, this did not mean that the elect within Israel did not have grace to follow the Lord. The point is that this grace came from the Abrahamic covenant. Hence, the opposition between the old and new testaments is not between the CG found in the old and new testaments but between the “covenant of grace, as in its full efficacy under the New Testament, to the national covenant made with the Israelites at mount Sinai; and as a spiritual covenant to a typical."
> 
> Herman Witsius. _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_, (trans. William Crookshank; 1822; repr., Escondido, CA: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), Book 4, 12, XXVI.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 25, 2012)

Hi Randy,

1. Pink was quoting Witsius, not me. And he was only doing so to help explain his own view. My point was to show Pink's answer. My apologies if his quotation of Witsius was distracting


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2012)

Actually, I have never been a big fan of Pink. For 30 years I was a Reformed Baptist as you know. So it isn't because I didn't understand what was being said in a manner. 

As noted we both need to get a better picture of Owen maybe. That is what you and I are being encouraged to do. I suggest we do this. Read his Preface to Owen and then let's talk. I believe we are friends on Facebook. Either find me on FB or PM me on the PB for my email addy.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 25, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Since moral perfection was not possible and since it was a corporate command for obedience, I am just wondering what the criteria or the measuring rod for obedience was if you believe that the Mosiac economy had a COW element. It also seems as Mr Snyder pointed out earlier that the notion of corporate apostasy and corporate punishment carry over to the NC, so I do not understand where the Mosiac dispensation differs dramatically in form from this. I understand the greater revelation of the law given at Sinai could both point to the failure at Eden and the need for the Messiah but what trips me up most about the notion of a republication of the COW is how it would be graded? I am just a lay person and a young one at that and I am not trying to challenge anyone these are just honest questions I have.


I have a another question that I hope can maybe sorted out by a republicationist, ideally Dr Clark since this was initially about his views. (That and I like reading his stuff even when I must humbly disagree with him). Is required obedience in the Mosaic Covenant tied to all three divisions of the law or primarily one (either moral, civil or ceremonial)? I understand a believer could not throw away one part of the law without neglecting the others but would one aspect of the law be considered the test of Israel's faith? In other words the defining act of Israel's apostasy would be neglecting the sacrificial system, or the rejection of the civil society or so on. Also would it be proper to say that specifically in the Mosaic Covenant the law has four uses unlike the other major covenants with the fourth use being land grant?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2012)

Eric, the ceremonial is fulfilled in Christ. 1)The book of Hebrews is an admonition to see Christ and not return to the shadows and types. That is idolatry. To love the shadow and hold it in esteem after the anti-type of the type has arrived is an insult and full idolatry. 2)The Civil is bound up in general equity and based upon the moral law. 3)The Moral Law is the guide and rule for life for all who live. It is not abrogated. 

Now I will not speak for Dr. Clark on the Civil Law. I do know that there is something called Radical Two Kingdom Theology but I really don't want this thread to delve into that even though I believe it is a symptom of this issue with which I am trying to understand. So let's just try to keep the focus on the idea of the Subservient Covenant and the Mosaic. I want to discuss whether or not the Mosaic is a Covenant of Works mixed in with the Administration of the Covenant of Grace or if the Mosaic is purely an Administration of the Covenant of Grace as I understand in WCF 7.6. According to it the Old and New are of the same substance.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 26, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ... I want to discuss whether or not the Mosaic is a Covenant of Works mixed in with the Administration of the Covenant of Grace or if the Mosaic is purely an Administration of the Covenant of Grace as I understand in WCF 7. According to it the Old and New are of the same substance.



R. Martin (who looks way older than me but is actually younger), two things: 1. I am not sure the two options you mentioned are stated the way the old writers stated it; and 2. how do you understand the meaning of the term "substance"? I think I know what you mean by "same."  Both stating the question clearly and defining terms is of utmost importance so as not to talk past each other. This we affirm; our adversaries deny, for the Turretinians among us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2012)

Will reply when I get home Rich. I am up North at the RPC International conference. I just logged on for a few moments. Thanks for the question OLD MAN! We Dutch Hybrids can look old but we have an endurance in tribulation that very few can bare. LOL. Californians, what are we to do with those who can't see they are falling into the Ocean. I guess we must think they are missional. LOL. They are definitely closer to the gates of Hell.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2012)

Rich Barcellos said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > ... I want to discuss whether or not the Mosaic is a Covenant of Works mixed in with the Administration of the Covenant of Grace or if the Mosaic is purely an Administration of the Covenant of Grace as I understand in WCF 7. According to it the Old and New are of the same substance.
> ...


 
Definition of same.... a like 

Definition of substance.... essence or material of something



> There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.



In other words both the Old Covenant and New Covenant do not differ in essence nor doctrine. They are made of the same stuff and don't differ even though one illumines the Covenant of Grace more clearer. Jesus Christ is the substance of both the Mosaic and New Covenant. The Forgiveness of Sin is promised in both Covenants as is the reconciliation to God and a promise of a resurrection as Christ is preached in both Covenants. The reminder of the deadness of the soul. As Jesus said They are already condemned who do not believe in John chapter 3. The Psalms are replete with these expressions and full of the doctrine of Christ as are the Prophets and Law of the Old Mosaic period. The Mosaic was fully gracious in revealing this condemnation as the New Covenant does also. The Mosaic has the same promises looking toward Christ as the New Covenant has after Christ came. The Old Covenant is Gracious with the Start that God is remembering His Covenant in Exodus and extending it to and through Abraham's posterity and Christ. 

(Exo 2:24) And God heard their groaning, and *God remembered his covenant with Abraham*, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
(Exo 2:25) And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto _them.
_
(Exo 6:2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I _am_ the LORD:
(Exo 6:3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
(Exo 6:4) *And I have also established my covenant with them*, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
(Exo 6:5) And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.
(Exo 6:6) Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I _am_ the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:
(Exo 6:7) *And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God:* and ye shall know that I _am_ the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
(Exo 6:8) And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I _am_ the LORD.

(Deu 8:18) But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for _it is_ he that giveth thee power to get wealth, *that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers*, as _it is_ this day.



> (Deu 8:18) But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for _it is_ he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as _it is_ this day.





> _(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself._
> 
> _(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me._
> _(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
> ...


_


As I said in many other places, I am still working this out and I believe I am starting to get a better handle on it. But then again I have felt I had a handle on so much before. I know not as I ought to know. Keep asking me these questions so I can keep working it out brother. Thanks for always being there at the drop of a hat, always being Pastoral with me,.and being my brother. 

I believe I address many of the concerns people have in this blog. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/

_


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 26, 2012)

R. Martin said: Definition of substance.... essence or material of something
>>>>

Let's start with definitions. Assuming substance = "essence or material of something," let's posit the sacrificial system of the Sinai Covenant. Was it of the substance of that which it was typological of? Were the types of the substance of their antitypes? Or, take the promised land and ask the same question. Sleep well, og!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2012)

Okay, I am sorry Rich, I think I said essence and doctrine in the first sentence also to define what I meant. Substance being used here is the same way that many use it when referring to the Trinity. I am referring to doctrine and the Covenant of Grace. If I am not mistaken, many have used the word substance when they say the persons of the Trinity are of the same substance in essence but we know that there is no physical material because God is invisible. It is poor terminology. 



> NPNF1-03. On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Philip Schaff
> Moral Treatises
> Table of Contents
> 
> ...




Dabney


> *Objections All Materialistic.**The Socinian would say here: "Precisely so; and that is why we reason against the impossibility of a trinity in unity. If divisibility is totally irrelevant to infinite Spirit, then it is indivisible, and so, can admit no trinity."Inspect this carefully, and you will find that it is merely a verbal fallacy. The Socinian cheats himself with the notion that he knows something here, of the divine substance, which he does not know. By indivisible here, he would have us understand the mechanical power of utterly resisting division, like that imputed to an atom of matter. But has Spirit this material property? This is still to move in the charmed circle of material conceptions. The true idea is, not that the divine substance is materially atomic; but that the whole idea of parts and separation is irrelevant to its substance, in both a negative and affirmative sense. To say that Spirit is indivisible, in that material sense, is as false as to say that it is divisible. Hence the stock argument of the Socinian against the possibility of a trinity is found to be a fallacy; and it is but another instance of our incompetency to comprehend the real substance of spirit, and of the confusion which always attends our efforts to do so. We cannot disprove here, by our own reasonings, any more than we can prove; for the subject is beyond our cognition.I pray the student to bear in mind, that I am not here attempting to explain the Trinity, but just the contrary: I am endeavoring to convince him that it cannot be explained. (And because it cannot be explained, it cannot be rationally rebutted.) I would show him that we must reasonably expect to find the doctrine inexplicable, and to leave it so. I wish to show him that all our difficulties on this doctrine arise from the vain conceit that we comprehend something of the subsistence of God’s substance, when, in fact, we only apprehend something. Could men be made to see that they comprehend nothing, all the supposed impossibilities would vanish; there would remain a profound and majestic mystery.*



So, I need to tighten up my language a bit. 

There are promises of eternal blessing (Spiritual) and earthly blessing in the Covenant of Grace as the meek shall inherit the Kingdom of God as well as the earth. There is also the physicality of the Kingdom of God on earth as well as it is spiritual. So yes, I know and believe it is type and anti-type in someways and yet spiritual and physical in both. The hardcore types were sacramental like the Lord's Table is sacramental but they point forward to something. The Lord's Table points back to something and proclaims it also. So yes, there are types and anti-types. There is the first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, the sacrifices of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and they keep becoming more defined covenantally through progressive revelation. They progressively reveal the coming work of the Messiah and His Lordship and the Covenant of Grace in the Pascal Lamb. Then we meet the anti-type in full. The Covenant is renewed and remembered as all the promises and progressive revelation are fulfilled in Messiah the Prince. The Covenant is fulfilled and we have forgiveness in the Covenant of Grace just as the Old Covenant had in looking forward. We just look back with full revelation as we in both Testaments look forward to the consummation of all things. We have the same promise that God will be our God and our sins are forgiven.

I am a physical natural man as described in 1 Corinthians 2:14. Then I became a Christian. I am now a member of the Church. I am a new man in Christ. I became a Spiritual man as described in 1 Corinthians 2:12. Did I cease being physical? No, but because I became a spiritually alive being didn't take away from my physical aspects. In fact I still wrestle with them. I am a Spiritually alive man and still physical. Unfortunately, there is still a now and not yet (but will be) aspect to much of what we still even see today. 

I hope I have cleared up and tightened up my language a bit.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 27, 2012)

Randy, a yes or no answer is what I was looking for. Either types are of the substance or material of their anti-types or they are not. Which is it? I think they are not. If they were they would render themselves as non-types; they would be the things themselves. The Sinai Covenant contains many types/shadows of that which was to come. That which was to come has come. And it is that which was to come which is of the essence and substance of the covenant of grace, "made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed" (WLC 31), formally covenanted when He shed His blood (Heb. 13:20). Until then, it was the covenant to come, though its redemptive virtue, power, and efficacy cast its saving shadow "unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein [Christ] was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever" (WCF VIII.6).


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 27, 2012)

My apologies to Richard Barcellos for misreading his post. But given its potential for being misread by others and derailing the thread from the OP I will it deleted.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 27, 2012)

I think if Republication is still being spoken of as "Republication in some sense" by those who hold to it, it is still, as yet, a woolly and ill-defined and mysterious concept.

It is important to realise - as pointed out above - that hypothetical republication, or even typological republication, in the ceremonial and civil law,with symbolical pointers to Christ's eventually being born under the law is not real republication.

The Israelites were dependent on saving grace, including sanctification, in order to the continued tenure and prosperity in the Land.

Our Lord Himself engages in hypothetical republication, with the Rich Young Ruler. Hypothetical republication, therefore, should be regularly used by the Gospel preacher.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 27, 2012)

Rich Barcellos said:


> Either types are of the substance or material of their anti-types or they are not.



I think I answered your question Rich. Maybe I am not doing a good job.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> The hardcore types...
> So yes, there are types and anti-types.
> There is the first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, the sacrifices of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and they keep becoming more defined covenantally through progressive revelation. They progressively reveal the coming work of the Messiah and His Lordship and the Covenant of Grace in the Pascal Lamb. Then we meet the anti-type in full. The Covenant is renewed and remembered as all the promises and progressive revelation are fulfilled in Messiah the Prince. The Covenant is fulfilled and we have forgiveness in the Covenant of Grace just as the Old Covenant had in looking forward. We just look back with full revelation as we in both Testaments look forward to the consummation of all things. We have the same promise that God will be our God and our sins are forgiven.



I defined substance and removed material Rich as defined above. Are Covenants Material? 


I think you are overstating this and missing the truth about what I said. By your either or situation you are missing the point. Are you implying that substance defined must always bare the assimilation of having material attached to it in our discussions? I don't believe that is true. If that were true then we couldn't speak of the Trinity with the term of substance. I have tried to explain that. Did I do a bad job?

BTW, I do know Christ and reconiliation to God (the Person and Work of Christ) is the substance of the Covenant of Grace. Is not Christ Present in the Old? Is reconciliation a material aspect? Christ is. But I believe He is present in both the Old and New.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 27, 2012)

Randy, thanks for the interaction. I must tend to sermon prep. Our discussion helped me. Iron sharpens iron. That makes you deflowered iron.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 27, 2012)

Rich Barcellos said:


> deflowered iron



Does that make me a matured old hag? LOL.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 27, 2012)

The representative place of Israel's anointed kings in relation to the people, was a typological pointer - for instance - to Christ's representation of us.

If kings - such as Solomon - behaved well they could bring blessing on the nation; if they behaved badly they could bring swift trouble, because they represented God's kingly rule in a way other leaders have never done, and because they pointed to Christ.

No-one would suggest however that they were in a real republication of the CoW; nor should it be suggested that OT Israel as a whole was.

The Israelite kings were just pale shadows of Christ that failed where He succeeded, and succeeds. Moreover they needed grace to be relatively "good".


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 28, 2012)

I found this article of interest. https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...Nt1xLn-vBgvCQ1ZerKZOE1_dQXq8wx&attredirects=0


----------

