# 2 Cor 3:6 & Republicationism



## HisRobes4Mine (Feb 24, 2018)

Was interacting with a RB brother and we were talking about whether the MC was a republication of the CoW or not. Anyway, it started me thinking about my understanding of the later part of 2 Cor 3:6 “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” 

What impact will the various forms of CT have in interpreting this verse? (i.e. will a RB understand this passage differently than a paedo?) What is the correct interpretation? Does this verse lend itself to understanding the MC as a CoW?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 24, 2018)

The issue of republication under Moses is logically distinct from that of infant baptism. Many Reformed divines in the past and some in the present (myself included, not that I am a divine) hold to a form of republication. I maintain that the covenant of works - 'do this and live' - was republished for pedagogical and typological reasons under Moses. This position is not the same as affirming that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works simpliciter. Instead, it was part of what constituted the Mosaic economy as the legal administration of the covenant of grace. 

Now that the new covenant has superseded the legal administration of the everlasting covenant of grace, all that is left of the Mosaic economy is the republished covenant of works. Thus, those who seek to go back to Moses, after the coming of Christ, are going back to a covenantal era that can now only bring death. That is basically how I would understand 2 Corinthians 3:6.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 24, 2018)

I learned a lot from Daniel's blogs. I studied this issue in-depth for almost two years. Here are my conclusions:

The Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. This is the position of the WCF. If this is true, how to make sense of passages like the one you cited, 2 Corinthians 3:6? In this way. The Covenant of Works was Re-stated within the larger compass of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, the Mosaic Covenant was, in essence, NOT the Covenant of Works but the Covenant of Grace. But at the same time, the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works ("Do this and live") WAS indeed declared once again at Sinai. So...how can Sinai be in essence the Covenant of Grace? Because of the way that the content of the covenant of works related to the rest of the Mosaic Covenant. Think of a bag of beef jerky. There are actually two things in that bag: delicious pieces of dried meat; and a strange white packet--that you definitely DON'T want to eat. Eating the packet can hurt you. So why put it in? Because it serves a particular purpose: it preserves the meat contained in the packet. So in that same packet, there are two things, that are meant to be distinguished and separated and rightly and properly understood. The white packet (silica gel I think it's called) isn't meant to be eaten; but it's in there in order to submit to the larger purpose of making the beef jerky delicious. So it was at Sinai. It's in THIS way that Paul is speaking of the Law in 2 Corinthians 3:6. In and of itself--just like that white packet of silica gel--it kills. But it was never meant to be taken in and of itself. Just as the silica gel's whole purpose is to serve the larger bag of beef jerky, so it was with the Covenant of Works as revealed in the context of the Mosaic Covenant's manifestation of the Covenant of Grace: The law *strictly taken* (as the Puritans so often referred to it), that is, the content of the Covenant of Works as expressed in that phrase, "Do this and live"; was always meant to point us to the Law *largely taken*, that is, the gospel, which was the essence of the Mosaic Covenant, which in turn is how Jesus could say that Moses spoke and wrote of HIM and how the author of Hebrews can tell us that we have the same good news preached to us as they did in the wilderness at the foot of Sinai. Both these forms of the Law we see in Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law (STRICTLY taken) the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law (LARGELY taken)". . . In other words, the gospel is IN the Law but it's not OF the Law. But coming back around, what Paul is speaking of in 2 Corinthians 3:6 is the Law as strictly taken; the Law as referring to the content of the Covenant of Works (like the silica gel) as distinguished from its whole overall context of the Covenant of Grace. And in THIS sense, yes, the Law kills, and it is a ministry of death. And it serves this purpose in order to drive us to Christ, as also revealed in the Law in its LARGER sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 25, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> The Covenant of Works was Re-stated within the larger compass of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, the Mosaic Covenant was, in essence, NOT the Covenant of Works but the Covenant of Grace.



That is an excellent statement of the question. There is so much confusion on this issue, and proponents of different views tend to talk past each other because we are not always clear on what is meant by republication. Affirming that the covenant of works was republished under Moses is not the same thing as asserting that the Mosaic economy was a covenant of works and not an administration of the covenant of grace.


----------



## Von (Feb 26, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> not that I am a divine


Thanks for clearing that up.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 26, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> I learned a lot from Daniel's blogs. I studied this issue in-depth for almost two years. Here are my conclusions:
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. This is the position of the WCF. If this is true, how to make sense of passages like the one you cited, 2 Corinthians 3:6? In this way. The Covenant of Works was Re-stated within the larger compass of the Mosaic Covenant. In other words, the Mosaic Covenant was, in essence, NOT the Covenant of Works but the Covenant of Grace. But at the same time, the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works ("Do this and live") WAS indeed declared once again at Sinai. So...how can Sinai be in essence the Covenant of Grace? Because of the way that the content of the covenant of works related to the rest of the Mosaic Covenant. Think of a bag of beef jerky. There are actually two things in that bag: delicious pieces of dried meat; and a strange white packet--that you definitely DON'T want to eat. Eating the packet can hurt you. So why put it in? Because it serves a particular purpose: it preserves the meat contained in the packet. So in that same packet, there are two things, that are meant to be distinguished and separated and rightly and properly understood. The white packet (silica gel I think it's called) isn't meant to be eaten; but it's in there in order to submit to the larger purpose of making the beef jerky delicious. So it was at Sinai. It's in THIS way that Paul is speaking of the Law in 2 Corinthians 3:6. In and of itself--just like that white packet of silica gel--it kills. But it was never meant to be taken in and of itself. Just as the silica gel's whole purpose is to serve the larger bag of beef jerky, so it was with the Covenant of Works as revealed in the context of the Mosaic Covenant's manifestation of the Covenant of Grace: The law *strictly taken* (as the Puritans so often referred to it), that is, the content of the Covenant of Works as expressed in that phrase, "Do this and live"; was always meant to point us to the Law *largely taken*, that is, the gospel, which was the essence of the Mosaic Covenant, which in turn is how Jesus could say that Moses spoke and wrote of HIM and how the author of Hebrews can tell us that we have the same good news preached to us as they did in the wilderness at the foot of Sinai. Both these forms of the Law we see in Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law (STRICTLY taken) the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law (LARGELY taken)". . . In other words, the gospel is IN the Law but it's not OF the Law. But coming back around, what Paul is speaking of in 2 Corinthians 3:6 is the Law as strictly taken; the Law as referring to the content of the Covenant of Works (like the silica gel) as distinguished from its whole overall context of the Covenant of Grace. And in THIS sense, yes, the Law kills, and it is a ministry of death. And it serves this purpose in order to drive us to Christ, as also revealed in the Law in its LARGER sense.



I like the way John Colquhoun put it: The Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of grace with echoes of the covenant of works.

I think it'd be a very strange thing for God to set up another strict covenant of works like that in the Garden. He sets up one at creation, and perfect man falls under, and then sets up another one for fallen men who are lawbreakers even before they receive it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 26, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> I learned a lot from Daniel's blogs.



Jon, are you possibly confusing me with Randy (Puritan Covenanter)?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 26, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jon, are you possibly confusing me with Randy (Puritan Covenanter)?



Daniel--YES, I'm sorry about that.


----------

