# Question on Republication



## Douglas P. (Feb 9, 2011)

For a while now I’ve been following the ‘republication’ debate. Just when I think I understand what is being said I read something new and feel lost again. So I’ve written, in outline fashion, what I understand republication covenant theology to be, and am wondering if I am understanding it correctly.

Pre fall:

- God made a Covenant of Works with Adam, as the representative for all of humanity. 

- The Covenant of Works was the basis for God’s relationship with man, and how God expressed his goodness and promise of blessed reward to man.

- Although the Covenant of Works was the basis for God’s relationship with man, it was governed by the law. The law was the legal agreement, by which Adam was to obtain by his merit (merit here, is being defined as pactum merit) the reward.

- Adam broke the covenant by breaking the law by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus losing any ability to obtain his blessed reward, incurring God’s wrath and plunging all of humanity into utter despair.

Post fall:

- Immediately after Adam’s sin, God establishes the Covenant of Grace with Adam and Eve in promise form. This promise is the Gospel.

- The Covenant of Grace is the temporal outworking of the eternal Covenant of Redemption.

- The Covenant of Redemption is the pretemporal Trinitarian agreement, whereby God promises to redeem the elect through salvation by the Son, Jesus Christ. 

- Christ secures salvation for the elect by his active and passive obedience. Salvation for the elect is through faith alone, in Christ alone, and is entirely a gracious gift. This is the Gospel.

- The covenant of grace then, is the historical administration of the Gospel.

- The covenant of grace made with Adam is renewed with Abraham.

And this is where I get a little lost:

- The covenant made at Sinai, was not the renewal of the covenant of grace, instead it was the ‘typological republication’ of the pre fall covenant of works. The covenant made at Sinai, administered through Moses, was going to govern Israel’s retention of the land. 

- During the Mosaic administration, the Gospel was still administered through the covenant of grace in the form of the promise made to Abraham. Thus the covenant made at Sinai was not a covenant kept by faith, but it was a covenant kept by obedience. The covenant made at Sinai was then a ‘layer’ to the covenant of grace.

- Christ came, and is the fulfillment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. He fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant by becoming the eschalogical reality of the promise and fulfilled the Mosaic covenant by fulfilling the requirements of the law for his people.

Am I on the right track, or have I gone astray somewhere? If I am on the right track, what are the major objections?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2011)

Douglas,
Personally, I think you've articulated the issues very well for someone like me, who's not gotten deeply into the literature, but is listening to the discussions. I don't have anything to add to your analysis, but here are some thoughts on the topic.

I think MGKline pushed a dualism between the covenants of Abraham and Moses, which totally bifurcates the OT message--a *major mistake*, in my opinion. There is certainly a strong element of law and works in the Old Covenant, a "glory overlay" to it. The _republication_ idea of a "layer" or a "level" goes too far, however. Yes, the people swore to "do their part" of the covenant; but it seems to me pushing the works principle too far leads inevitably to a dispensational-friendly view of the place of the sacrificial system, as a means of returning to the opening covenantal status quo.

In other words, understanding the Law as "on one level" being (in fact) a form of works-covenant thus _approves_ of the deeply erroneous views the people came to have, until we arrive in Jesus' day, and the Pharisees have rendered the law completely "doable," in a formalistic and external way. Sure, they'd missed the point of the law, but they'd also succeeded in getting all out of the law that it was possible to get. I can hardly think of a bigger mistaken read of Jesus' judgment of the Jews of his day. Nor do I think that a correct reading of Paul, in Gal.3-4 for instance, bears out this kind of republication thesis.

The Mosaic administration was fundamentally concerned with the Covenant of Grace; missing this point misses its core message. It's the very missed message that brought on the judgment of God in the OT every time all the way to AD70, not simply a failure to live up to the law's formal requirements (including its provisions for covenant-restoration). It's in light of David's covenant, or most especially Jesus' (the New) covenant, that looking back over the whole fabric of the covenants that we recognize how we must analyze God's covenant-dealings with us in a richly textured manner.

David understood the Old Covenant aright, Ps.32:2. And so did many others down through the generations. But to say that the Pharisees, or anyone who viewed the Mosaic covenant through legalistic eyes, were "half-right" gives them credit they don't deserve. By missing the telos or end of the law, they missed the meaning of Moses entirely.

Paul tells us *why* the Old Covenant had a "glory-overlay" that covered Abraham's promises, 2Cor.3, especially vv7-16. It was given to veil, to BLIND the eyes of many reprobates in Israel, lest they should turn and be healed. The legalities, beside functioning as a kind of severe discipline for the people, were intended to drive the people to the sacrifices in desperate need for the hope the sacrifices pointed unto--not as a resource for returning to the status quo. This is the import of Heb.9:6-7; 10:1,11; 7:27-28; 9:24-26; etc.

Affirming a two-track (layer/level) covenant model demonstrates the affinities of Kline's system with the Baptist's understanding of the relations between the covenants. It undermines the Reformed and Presbyterian understanding that emphasizes an internal/external dualism of a single covenant only. The overlap with the covenantal-Baptist is not complete; they push the dualistic nature of the covenant back into Abraham himself, creating "earthly" and "heavenly" covenants. But certainly in Moses, therefore, the bivalent scheme comports very well with Baptist perceptions. In Reformed/Presbyterian classic covenant-theology, the external _emphasis_ of the Old Covenant, and it's _blinding_ characteristics, accounts for the outward *forms* that took so much "work." The removal of that yoke in Christ is one of the great blessings of the current covenant.

But the yoke of Moses was not a covenant of works, _as such._


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 9, 2011)

Katekomen (the online journal of GPTS) has just posted a paper on this topic written by three GPTS students for their Systematic Theology class:

KLHORTONIAN THEOLOGY AND THE MOSAIC COVENANT

This is not to say that I agree with everything that the authors say in their paper. I have yet to read The Law is Not of Faith. Nevertheless, I find it remarkable that the authors appear to share one of the main concerns that I have with regards to "Klhortonianism" (I prefer "Kline-Horton" even though it's longer), which is that the "Law/Gospel distinction" seems to be overemphasized. I have previously pointed out elsewhere that the Lutherans themselves had warned against such an overemphasis because it could lead to Antinomianism. The authors attribute this to Klhorton's Two Kingdom theology, which, In my humble opinion, was not given ample treatment in the paper.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 9, 2011)

> But the yoke of Moses was not a covenant of works, as such.



Very helpful, Bruce.

Since the covenant with Adam is the archetypal CoW, the Mosaic Covenant to be a RoCoW, would have had to offer eternal salvation - as with Adam - on perfect or partial obedience to the Mosaic Covenant, which it didn't. 

The Mosaic Covenant if it was a real RoCoW, would also have had to throw the Israelites onto their own spiritual resources, if not for personal salvation - which thankfully the Republicationists deny - at least for their national salvation. 

But in reality the national salvation of Israel depended on grace working faith and obedience in thousands of sinful individual Israelites who had already broken the CoW in Adam. That shouldn't/can't be called a RoCoW.

The revelation of Law/Torah/instruction is full of Gospel and is an advance on the revelation that Abraham had. It was by looking in faith to the Gospel revealed in the Torah rather than by trying to keep the ethics of the Torah in their own strength - as was increasingly the case in the Pharisaical streak from after the time of Ezra - that individual Israelites would know justification, adoption and sanctification, and that the nation as a whole would avoid disaster under the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2011)

Rich,
To be fair, they do call the land-inheritance a typological inheritance. Canaan (in one sense) is a type of heaven/eternity. Staying in the land forever (as a corporate body) was the promise. We infer a better permanent status was Adam's hope, if he passed probation. I'm not sure there's a "correlate" to a further hope buried in the types.


----------



## Sola Fide (Feb 10, 2011)

I too have been scratching my head trying to understand these debates...

Bruce, your note that some have “pushed a dualism between the covenants of Abraham and Moses” strikes a chord. I have profited much from contemporary writers on the Law-Gospel distinction, I believe it is a vital one. But maybe a mistake that is sometimes made is to equate the CoW with the law, and the CoG with the gospel. I wonder if this lies behind viewing the Mosaic covenant as a RoCoW. But rather we can see the law as fulfilling a function within the CoG. I think Witsius calls the law an “instrument” of the covenant (of grace) - and this is true in all its administrations.


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 10, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think MGKline pushed a dualism between the covenants of Abraham and Moses, which totally bifurcates the OT message--a major mistake, in my opinion. There is certainly a strong element of law and works in the Old Covenant, a "glory overlay" to it. The republication idea of a "layer" or a "level" goes too far, however. Yes, the people swore to "do their part" of the covenant; but it seems to me pushing the works principle too far leads inevitably to a dispensational-friendly view of the place of the sacrificial system, as a means of returning to the opening covenantal status quo.



Rev. Buchanan, can you elaborate for me the problem of holding a “dispensational-friendly view of the place of the sacrificial system”. 

Would you argue that the sacrificial system is the Gospel contained in the law? (I ask this out of ignorance of dispensationalism, and Reformed Presbyterianism for that matter, and how it handles the sacrificial system) 




Contra_Mundum said:


> In other words, understanding the Law as "on one level" being (in fact) a form of works-covenant thus approves of the deeply erroneous views the people came to have, until we arrive in Jesus' day, and the Pharisees have rendered the law completely "doable," in a formalistic and external way. Sure, they'd missed the point of the law, but they'd also succeeded in getting all out of the law that it was possible to get. I can hardly think of a bigger mistaken read of Jesus' judgment of the Jews of his day. Nor do I think that a correct reading of Paul, in Gal.3-4 for instance, bears out this kind of republication thesis.



But isn’t the Law “doable”, not by fallen man of course, but by Christ? Wouldn’t we say that Christ ‘did’ the Law? Or am I missing something here?


This brings me to some broader questions. I ask these questions as someone who holds to republication, namely out of ignorance of other views, as it’s how I learned covenant theology. I am very eager however, to be taught more. So here we go:

1) Do we agree that Adam was created and put in the Garden from the outflow of God’s goodness?

2) And do we agree that he was to stay in paradise, as well as receive all future blessing (or curses) based solely on his obedience to the law?

3) And the reason we call this relationship a Covenant of Works, is because Adam’s relationship with God was both governed by, and to be judged by, the law?

4) Do we also agree that Israel was given the land from the outflow of God’s goodness and grace?

5) And do we agree that Israel was to retain and inhabit that land based on their obedience to the Law?

6) So why wouldn’t we say, in some sense or on some level, that Israel’s relationship with God was governed by a Covenant of Works?

I see problems with what I’ve laid out above, but I also find problems when I try and formulate it differently. Namely, if Israel wasn’t going to retain the land through obedience, then what other principle is active?

(As a side note, I greatly appreciate all of the constructive criticism. I would argue that the confusion by most of us on this issue has to do with heated rhetoric obfuscating what are most likely brilliant arguments. I’m just unable to see them clearly through such dense heat.)


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2011)

Thanks Douglas! This is a very helpful thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2011)

On your first question.


> 1) Do we agree that Adam was created and put in the Garden from the outflow of God’s goodness?



There is a difference between the Covenant laid out before Adam than the Mosaic. The Pre-lapsarian Covenant made with Adam had no promise of grace. It was based upon merit and fulfillment. 
(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 
In Adam we all die. 

Some try to make the CofW one of grace proving God was gracious in his condescending toward man. But the CofW was not one of grace. The one act of sin killed all without any hope. 

The Mosaic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace in that even when sin was committed it gave long suffering (patience), possibility of repentance, God's calling for the sinful to repent, and a sacrificial system that pointed to Christ and the covering of sin. Even when the people forfeited their right to the inheritance of the land God used their exile to call them back to repentance, reconciliation, and restoration. He disciplined them as sons. The CofW never never never did that. The Covenant of Grace always does. That is why the Mosaic is not a republication of the CofW. It is a restatement of God's Character and a revealer of sin. It is a tutor, govenor, to bring us to Christ and a revealer of how we are to live. The Covenant of Works never never did that in a gracious way. It only killed when the first act of defiance was made. 



> (Gal 4:1) Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
> 
> (Gal 4:2) But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
> 
> ...



Does that help a little?


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 10, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Some try to make the CofW one of grace proving God was gracious in his condescending toward man. But the CofW was not one of grace. The one act of sin killed all without any hope.



I am with you on this point, which I why I was careful to leave out the word grace in my first question. I too would argue that grace (narrowly defined) was not necessary in the Covenant of Works with Adam.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Mosaic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace in that even when sin was committed it gave long suffering (patience), possibility of repentance, God's calling for the sinful to repent, and a sacrificial system that pointed to Christ and the covering of sin. Even when the people forfeited their right to the inheritance of the land God used their exile to call them back to repentance, reconciliation, and restoration. He disciplined them as sons. The CofW never never never did that. The Covenant of Grace always does. That is why the Mosaic is not a republication of the CofW. It is a restatement of God's Character and a revealer of sin. It is a tutor, govenor, to bring us to Christ and a revealer of how we are to live. The Covenant of Works never never did that in a gracious way. It only killed when the first act of defiance was made.



This is helpful, thank you. 

Here’s where I am still stuck. When I think of God’s grace towards me personally, in terms of my relationship to Him in Christ through the Covenant of Grace, I think of this relationship as unbreakable because Christ both accomplished everything that is required of me by God and because Christ bore the penalty due to me because of my sin.

I am not trying to imply that you believe or are saying anything different than what I have said above. But my understanding is that God’s grace towards me is grace because someone else has done something in my place, and is solely on the basis of another person’s obedience and not my own. In other words it’s grace, and not works, because I’m not an active participant, or the ‘doer’, in the covenant relationship. Instead I’m a passive ‘receiver’ of Christ’s ‘doing’.

My understanding of Jeremiah 31:32, “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… my covenant that they broke” is that the Sinai covenant could be broken. If the Mosaic covenant was only a gracious covenant, then how did they break it?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 10, 2011)

could you explain what you mean by grace narrowly defined? 

I ask because Owen would say that the CoW does have grace in it, because anytime that God interracts with man grace is involved. I am thinking you may be defining grace differently.


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 10, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> could you explain what you mean by grace narrowly defined?



Grace narrowly defined is (for me at least) something additional, which we were not created with, that is necessary to remain in a relationship with God (namely someone else’s righteousness). You could call it Grace with a capital G. This is the sort of Grace I am seeing active in the Covenant of Grace.

Adam, prior to the fall, had everything necessary to remain in a covenantal relationship with God, Adam did not need Grace (as defined above).

This is not to say that God wasn’t gracious to Adam prior to the fall in the sense that God gave Adam all that was necessary and then some.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 10, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > could you explain what you mean by grace narrowly defined?
> ...


 
Thanks for clearing this up for me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> My understanding of Jeremiah 31:32, “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… my covenant that they broke” is that the Sinai covenant could be broken. If the Mosaic covenant was only a gracious covenant, then how did they break it?


 

I believe they were able to break it because they were baptized into Moses whether they were regenerate or not. They were also baptized into a Covenant that was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. It was a type and not the anti-type. Those who were baptized into Moses were graced by the giving of the oracles of God. Those who were capable of breaking it were the ones who didn't receive it with the like precious faith of Abraham but sought to fulfill it by their own righteousness as Romans 10 declares or they were just very sinful and loved this world's pleasures more than Christ as 1 Corinthians 10 states.




> (1Co 10:1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
> 
> (1Co 10:2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> 
> ...






> (Rom 9:3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
> 
> (Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
> 
> (Rom 9:5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.






> (Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
> 
> ...



I agree with you that the New Covenant is unbreakable if we are in true Union with Christ. It was the same for those who were truly regenerate in the Old Covenant also. But they who were regenerate had the same precious faith as Father Abraham which is described in Romans chapter 4.

Have I muddied up the waters any better? They were baptized into Moses. We are baptized into Christ. From type to Anti-type


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > could you explain what you mean by grace narrowly defined?
> ...


 
Some people will not like using the word "grace" about God's relations with Man before he sinned. The word "grace" can be used, as long as it is understood that it is God's bountiful goodness, not to a sinner who has demerited God's goodness but, to an innocent, holy and righteous man. 

The danger is that the use of the word grace in connection with the CoW leads to confusion, and a monocovenantalism that does not distinguish between the CoW and CoG and denies human merit in Adam or Christ.

God having created Adam, and being a righteous God, had a "duty of care" to Adam because of God's commitment to His own good, holy and righteous character. E.g. He could not immerse Adam in Hell without good reason.

The fact is that the terms of the CoW went beyond the duty of care that God had to, and guaranteed Adam, by virtue of Who He is. Adam and Eve - and all their children - were offered something more than this, indeed the possibility of being raised above the angels (Psalm 8). 

I would prefer to call it God's wonderful and bountiful goodness to pre-Fall Man, and reserve the word "grace" for God's wonderful and bountiful goodness to those that deserve the opposite of goodness.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------




> My understanding of Jeremiah 31:32, “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… my covenant that they broke” is that the Sinai covenant could be broken. If the Mosaic covenant was only a gracious covenant, then how did they break it?



Gracious covenants can be broken even by true believers, at least in their outward, visible, and legal aspect. E.g. if a believer commits certain gross sins against the 10C he can come under church sanctions and be prevented from partaking of the Lord's Supper. If he/she is a true believer they are not lost, but there is a sense in which they have - hopefullly temporarily - broken the covenant in an outward, visible and legal way, and it is correct that the church deal with them in the way that such sins are meant to be dealt with in the CoG. The provision for most sin in the CoG does not involve such dealings with the session and/or the congregation ( e.g. Matthew 18).

The Old Covenant and its typological husk was tested to destruction by the Israelites as a whole, and as a nation. This was shown by the fact that God split the nation in two, allowed the Assyrians to remove the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and allowed the Babylonians to remove the Southern Kingdom (Judah). Later after a long period of Pharasaic legalism - the opposite spiritual error to the blatant idolatry of the pre-Exilic period - and the rejection of the Messiah, God deemed that the Jews had broken the Covenant enough that they deserved exile under the Romans.

It would only have been by grace that the Israelites/Jews would have kept the Old Covenant by not reaching such a level of wickedness that God would have spared them division, the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Romans.

With the New Covenant, although individuals, congregations and denominations do break the Covenant in the sense outlined above, God's true people are not ultimately lost. God's true people were not ultimately lost under the Old Covenant either, but God in Christ is committed to His New Covenant and His Church in such a way that He will not allow it to be broken or destroyed, as long as this World stands, as long as He continues tio fulfill His purposes through it, and into eternity.

The old wineskins/typological husk of the babyhood Church has been tested to destruction, broken, and dispensed with by God, but the lessons remain for the New Covenant Israel of God, the adult Church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## discipulo (Feb 10, 2011)

I read most of the articles of The Law is not of Faith, again the so called Republication of the CoW is not a novelty on Covenant Theology,

I just recall reading Witsius affirming it, but never in the sense of a reinstauration of the CoW to the individual. In the that all Reformed

agree that the Mosaic Covenant is also an Administration of the CoG, for example Atonement for Sin was typified in the Tabernacle / Temple offerings.

The CoW is recalled as Israel, as a typological son, as Adam was also a figure of the second Adam, went trough CSER - Creation - Sin -Exile - Restoration 

to use Roy Ciampa's redemptive history scheme - being the promised land a type both of the Consumation of the Kingdom and a remembrance of

the Prelapsarian Edenic Temple - the Temple and the Church Mission by Beale is also very illuminating on this subject.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2011)

> I read most of the articles of The Law is not of Faith, again the so called Republication of the CoW is not a novelty on Covenant Theology,



It's not a novelty.

There are a lot of views on what it is or may be, including a hypothetical RoCoW, which would not be a RoCoW, because it would not be a real RoCoW.

Even those who advocate a "real" RoCoW e.g. Horton, are advocating something so different from the CoW, that they should find another name for it instead of "the RoCoW" to avoid Covenantal and general theological confusion.

A real RoCoW would be where God offered the Israelites eternal salvation on the basis of their own good works without His saving grace in the Gospel. 

Did He even offer them tenure in the Land on that basis? 

No, because as sinful creatures and breakers of the CoW in Adam they had to look to His grace to make them right with Him i.e. justify them, and to help them obey the Ten Commandments and avoid idolatry or Pharasaism, so that they didn't become collectively so wicked that God judged them under the hand of other nations.

The Israelites needed God's grace in the Gospel to save them as individuals and they needed God's grace in the Gospel to save them as a nation, instead of which they spurned God's grace collectively - apart from a Remnant - and followed (to a large extent) idolatry in the pre-Exilic period, and followed (to a large extent) Pharasaism in the post-Exilic period.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2011)

discipulo said:


> I read most of the articles of The Law is not of Faith, again the so called Republication of the CoW is not a novelty on Covenant Theology,



I understand what you are saying. But as your third statement after this affirms it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Some are putting too much emphasis on the law not being of faith and one that kills. The Mosaic can not do something that has already happened to us once in Adam. It might reveal the deadness of our situation but it is not a redo. I still hold to some of the ideas of a republication but I think the understanding of republication is terribly scewed and misunderstood today. I had a poor understanding of it for many years. I am just recovering from that poor understanding thanks to some good men of God and their patience with this Particular Baptist.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 10, 2011)

How could there not be a sense of novelty in all of this when, as Mark Jones points out, the authors of TLNF are obviously influenced by Meredith Kline, whose thesis on covenant theology is influenced by George Mendenhall?

The following quote is from Mark Jones' review of TLNF.



> Finally, considering the general trajectory of this book, TLNF lacks a chapter that could shed some important light on this discussion, namely, the influence of George Mendenhall on Meredith Kline—and perhaps Kline's obvious influence on many of the authors—with regard to Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) Suzerain treaties. In short, Kline, following Mendenhall's research, argued that there are essentially two types of covenants: law covenants and promise covenants. In this schema, Sinai, particularly Deuteronomy, represents a "law covenant" on account of its striking parallels with ANE suzerain treaty formats. This covenant is almost always conditional, often involving curses upon those who fail to fulfill the terms of the covenant. Juxtaposed to this type of covenant is the Abrahamic covenant, which is an unconditional promise covenant that is modeled on a royal grant. Michael Horton, for example, follows this line of demarcation in several of his own works on the covenant. However, ANE scholars are raising many objections to Mendenhall's thesis. Recently Dr. Noel Weeks, an expert in ANE culture, has shown that both Mendenhall's and Kline's work is not without a number of serious problems, especially in the area of methodology. If the authors, particularly the editors, of TLNF wish to continue this discussion regarding the place and function of Sinai in redemptive history, they will need to reckon with the arguments of scholars like Weeks who, in my opinion, subject Mendenhall's and Kline's methodology to devastating critique.



Anyone who has read the first three chapters of Michael Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology knows that what Mark Jones is saying is true.



> "The last century of scholarship has helped to strengthen the traditional Reformed homage to the covenantal motif. *In the mid-twentieth century, George E. Mendenhall, consolidating a number of studies by others, demonstrated the remarkable parallels between the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., Old Testament) and ancient Near Eastern (i.e., secular) treaties.*" Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, p.11


 [emphasis mine]

Now, here's a question that Mark Jones raised which I believe is crucial to this issue:



> 4. In relation to Kline's dependence upon Mendenhall, and Horton's dependence upon them both, can we divide biblical covenants up into two categories of law covenants (e.g., Sinai) and promise covenants (e.g., Abrahamic)? How reliable is Mendenhall's methodology?


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 10, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Israelites needed God's grace in the Gospel to save them as individuals and they needed God's grace in the Gospel to save them as a nation, instead of which they spurned God's grace collectively - apart from a Remnant - and followed (to a large extent) idolatry in the pre-Exilic period, and followed (to a large extent) Pharasaism in the post-Exilic period.



Richard, are you saying, hypothetically speaking, that had Israel believed the Gospel, that they would have stayed in the land? If so, how would this have worked, in light of a passage such as Gal 3:12?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2011)

> And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.(Galatians 3:12)



But did not the Israelites/Jews in the Old Covenant period who had saving faith not seek to observe God's law by faith?

It was those who sought to observe the law without saving faith that failed and led Israel into idolatry in the pre-Exilic period and legalism in the post-Exilic period.



> The man that doeth them shall live in them.



This is a quote from a tributary passage in the Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:6. It is not at the head of the Mosaic Covenant. It is particularly appropriate for the material it is dealing with, because some of the practices listed in Leviticus 18 are inimical to physical life, having healthy children, and inimical to happy and healthy families. Observing the law - from various motives - can have benefits for this life, which point to the eternal benefits of being right with God and thus living according to His statutes.

The Apostle Paul, appropriately uses this passage to illustrate the difference between the CoG mentality and the CoW mentality. Those who seek salvation by observing ethical principles are excluding saving faith and would at most enjoy the temporary benefits of doing so.

The Judaisers clinging to the Mosaic law - _now that Christ had come_ - and their message of Christ plus circumcision, etc, showed that they had not understood the momentous changes brought by the coming of Christ and that they were still not relying on Him solely for salvation. 

If someone carefully observed all the Mosaic law - _before Christ had come_ - this would not indicate that they were unbelievers, but a genuine love for the Torah would be the result of faith.



> If so, how would this have worked, in light of a passage such as Gal 3:12?



I agree with Horton this much, that God wasn't looking for perfect obedience on the part of the Israelites, before He put them out of the Land. Both the Old and New Covenants make provision for sin. Under the Old Covenant you had to breach the 10C flagrantly before you were denied a typological sacrifice and excommunication by execution kicked in. This was probably relatively rare since the level of proof necessary was also very high. 

The Israelites had to reach a certain level of wickedness - collectively - before they were put out of the Land. This wasn't a RoCoW, but a graciously given typological teaching aid to an under age Church that needed it. 

The excommunication by death penalty and the threat of exile, collectively, from the Land, taught them about God's wrath, about Hell - being excluded from God's blessed presence - and encouraged them to flee to Christ revealed in the ceremonial law.

In the New Covenant we no longer have typological teaching aids because all types have fallen away, yet we still learn from the OT lessons in those types, just as an adult puts away his/her toys and reading and writing books, but still uses what has been learnt every day. So it is with the Israel of God.

Even in the New Covenant, when we're not under the babyhood system of Moses, there are however conditions - e.g. church sanctions come into play at certain points - to remaing visibly in the Covenant of Grace and the Church. Also God can withdraw His presence or send chastisements. But we don't call the New Covenant a "RoCoW".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 11, 2011)

I heard it on the WHI--a show I love to listen to, a great show, with great hosts--(but so you know I didn't make it up) what I attributed to the strong-form of the Repub. CoW position: namely that "the Pharisees were RIGHT!" in significant ways relative to the law, that they really understood Moses covenant, provided it was considered outwardly. Their fastidiousness and meticulousness proved they rightly understood the law as an works-covenant. They had cracked the code, so to speak, on legal accomplishments. Horton seems to affirm that when that man says, "all these I have kept since childhood," this is a legally _accurate_ statement from the man, that outwardly (though not in his heart) he had positively met the law's demands.

This, to me, seems to underscore precisely the opposite of Jesus' points against the Pharisees: namely that they were so WRONG about the law, and their treatment of it. Jesus even tells them they've all broken the law (in fact) so they can keep their traditions. The Pharisees weren't such great law-keepers, even externally. St.Paul was a FOOL when he once credited himself with "blamelessly" keeping the law. I don't think for a moment he believes (now) that in the former days he was actually perfect in legal terms--only that by their own man-made standards that he lived by, he was in the first rank.

Paul doesn't only indict the hearts of the Jews, in Rom.2; he attacks their activities as sinful. They sin because all men are sinners; they do not keep a clean slate. And in the end, no one escapes the condemnation. The appeal to heart-disobedience is only the beginning of conviction, for those who have foolishly convinced themselves that they are so disciplined they never sin outwardly. Its a bunch of nonsense. And once the blinders come off, one sees his sin everywhere and often, not simply from dedicated introspection.

Was there a covenant-of-works "motif" to the Old Covenant? Absolutely. And in that _sense,_ the CoW was "republished" as it was connected to the ethico-religio conduct of the people. But the law was also given in the context of the great salvation-event of the OT; and that connection is not to be clouded in favor of a reified typology. It is just as important to recognize that the moral law is given as the rule of love, and is the guide of the thankful, redeemed heart from its Siniatic origin.

Furthermore, the sacrificial system is one, long, illustration of grace through substitutionary atonement. There are two sides to the lesson of the altar as well. There's work, and a return to status quo ante; but to see the death for what it really is one would have to recognize the message of the Promise in those things, and (as Hebrews points out) the interminable quality of the offerings called out for an ideal antitype.

In other words, it is an impossible task to disentangle (for the purpose of compartmentalizing) the legal and spiritual, works and grace principles of the Mosaic economy. How convenient if only grace would stay confined in Abraham's covenant, and works ran freely and exclusively all over the Mosaic. But it just isn't that easy. And the Pharisees did not have the right idea of legal merits, and certainly did not have a (true) handle on the law, even if we granted "substance" to the typological. They were as mixed up (albeit in a different way) as the people were in Jeremiah's day. The latter were about priestly cult, with almost no regard for ethics. The Pharisees were all about ethics and ceremonies, and were less concerned for priestly cult.


----------



## Douglas P. (Feb 11, 2011)

I think I'm starting to get it. So is it fair to say the following;

1) Israel's retention of the land was governed by their obedience to the Law

2) But! This obedience was impossible if Israel did not *first *believe God, and have faith in the One whom the Law was pointing to.

3) So the problem of calling the Mosaic Covenant a republication of the Covenant of Works, is that it could insinuate that Israel, like Adam, had an ability to keep the Covenant without Grace (as narrowly defined in #12). Also, that it misses the point that without faith in Christ, the keeping of the Law was going to be impossible.


----------



## nicnap (Feb 11, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> that without faith in Chris



You are almost getting it, but I don't think their faith was to be in Chris. I am sure he is a nice guy, but he is merely a man after all.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2011)

nicnap said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > that without faith in Chris
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2011)

I don't see how those that hold to RoCoW can avoid positing a bifurcation in the hearts of the (godly) Israelites. On the one hand they were looking by faith to the grace of God for personal justification and sanctification.

On the other hand they were to look to their own resources for national temporal salvation (?) But secure tenure in the Land was a type of Heaven, so it would be quite wrong of the Israelites to seek it (and what it pointed to) by the keeping of the works of the law.

*Quote from Bruce*


> Rich,
> To be fair, they do call the land-inheritance a typological inheritance. Canaan (in one sense) is a type of heaven/eternity. Staying in the land forever (as a corporate body) was the promise. We infer a better permanent status was Adam's hope, if he passed probation. I'm not sure there's a "correlate" to a further hope buried in the types.



Of course the types of God's favour and Heaven and the types of God's wrath and Hell, being shadowy types, were less than perfect.

E.g. Some people that were going to Heaven like Daniel and Ezekiel were removed from the Land. Maybe some true believers were excommunicated by temporary exile or execution from the Land. And maybe some unbelievers prospered in the Land.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 11, 2011)

Douglas,
I do want to acknowledge that this is an intramural _debate._ There are arguments for the other position, and I don't want to imply that those who see the issue that way are somehow being dishonest in their formulations.

My attitude is that drawing a bright-line between the Mosaic-covenant and the Covenant of Grace is not the best way to defend a "republication" idea. demanding a two-teir system, where the lower register is law, and the upper register is grace, Moses and Abraham, is a formula fraught with error.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 11, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Douglas,
> I do want to acknowledge that this is an intramural _debate._ There are arguments for the other position, and I don't want to imply that those who see the issue that way are somehow being dishonest in their formulations.
> 
> My attitude is that drawing a bright-line between the Mosaic-covenant and the Covenant of Grace is not the best way to defend a "republication" idea. demanding a two-teir system, where the lower register is law, and the upper register is grace, Moses and Abraham, is a formula fraught with error.



If the evidence shows the Klinean republicationists are closer to the Lutheran or Amyraldian positions on the Mosaic covenant _vis a vis_ majority Reformed position, I would suggest this is not an"intramural" debate.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 11, 2011)

mvdm said:


> If the evidence shows the Klinean republicationists are closer to the Lutheran or Amyraldian positions on the Mosaic covenant _vis a vis_ majority Reformed position, I would suggest this is not an"intramural" debate.


 
It's interesting that you mentioned the Amyraldian position. I was reading a paper by Peter Wallace yesterday, ‎"The Doctrine of the Covenant in the Elenctic Theology of Francis Turretin" and I came across this:



> Cameron, the teacher of Amyraut, had introduced the idea that the Sinaitic covenant was distinct from the covenant of nature and the covenant of grace. Amyraut adapted and developed this in his threefold scheme (see above). Admitting that the Sinaitic covenant was different in dispensation, Turretin rejects the notion that it is different in substance on three grounds: (1) Scripture only allows for two covenants: the legal and the evangelical; (2) there are only two scriptural ways to obtain happiness: by works or by faith; and (3) the Sinaitic covenant declares itself to be a covenant of grace.



There's a footnote just right after the last sentence which says:
Turretin, XII.xii.1-9, appealing to Deut. 7:11-12; 29:10-13. 

Even though I have yet to read Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I think it would be good to study how he defends the unity of the Postlapsarian covenants as the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace. (This reminds me of Van Til: "unity in diversity")


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Feb 12, 2011)

Can anybody quote any statement from the WSC "republicationists" which denies the Sinaitic Covenant as containing the grace of eternal/ultimate salvation (_Thomas Boston saw the CoG as contained in the preface of the Sinaitic Covenant_)?

Also, a good read: The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace (by Dr. Herman Witsius)


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 12, 2011)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Can anybody quote any statement from the WSC "republicationists" which denies the Sinaitic Covenant as containing the grace of eternal/ultimate salvation (_Thomas Boston saw the CoG as contained in the preface of the Sinaitic Covenant_)?


 
I don't have a copy of The Law is Not of Faith but I do have Horton's 'Introducing Covenant Theology' and on page 54 he says this:



> At the same time, it is also true that *after the fall all covenants were founded on historical prologues that were indisputably gracious in character*. As we have seen, Israel was not chosen and liberated from Egypt because of their righteousness. Even the Decalogue begins with the exodus liberation event. This is a straightforward suzerainty treaty: "I have done X. Therefore, you do Y." At the same time, *what happens at Sinai itself is not gracious*. This pact made by the people establishes personal obedience to every commandment as the basis for life in the land. *The nation-state can break God's covenant*; the land promises are temporary and conditional, as Adam's probation was. They are not the final, ultimate reality.[emphases mine]



What Horton is saying here is *very different* from Thomas Boston's view of the Sinaitic Covenant.

In the paragraph that I quoted, Horton is acknowledging a similarity between the Sinaitic Covenant and all the other postlapsarian covenants. The similarity is that they all begin with a historical prologue. However, the similarity ends there for, unlike Boston, Horton is *NOT* saying that the historical prologue contains (or evidences) a covenant of grace.

Horton is merely acknowledging its _gracious character_ for the historical prologue is a declaration of the mighty act that God (exodus from Egypt) did for His people which is then made the basis for the conditional (breakable) Sinaitic covenant.

The most striking difference of all is that, *for Horton*, there was only *ONE* covenant delivered at Sinai and this was conditional and breakable, BUT, *for Boston*, there were *TWO* that were delivered at Sinai, not one:



> *Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. *First, the *covenant of grace* made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the Ten Commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the *covenant of works* made with Adam, contained in the same ten commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and sanction thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed; and *yet were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour's saying to him, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments* - Thou shalt do no murder...' (Matt. 19:17-18). The latter was a repetition of the former.The Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 77[emphases mine]



To summarize:
Horton - one covenant - conditional and breakable - not a covenant of grace. (It has accompanying elements that exhibit a gracious character but in itself it is not gracious.)

Boston - two covenants - 1) covenant of grace and 2) covenant of works (Boston qualifies this by saying "were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour's saying to him, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.")


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Feb 12, 2011)

Joel, what do you make of Horton, in another piece of his, basically affirming the "evangelical" aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, in agreement with Charles Hodge?



> Scripture itself assumes a distinction between the typological land-promises for a transitory administration (national Israel) and the perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant (of grace) for the salvation of believing Israelites. It is upon this logic that Paul's arguments in Romans 9-11 depend. *We do not thereby hold that the Old Testament is equivalent to a "covenant of works," but that during the Mosaic "tutelage," the status of national Israel as the typological-theocratic kingdom of God on earth was transitory and conditional.* Belonging to the nation (law) was not equivalent to being a child of Abraham (promise). Charles Hodge expresses it well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 12, 2011)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Joel, what do you make of Horton, in another piece of his, basically affirming the "evangelical" aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, in agreement with Charles Hodge?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Warren, you seriously need to ask, "What was the purpose of the quote from Hodge in this article?"
"Charles Hodge expresses it well:" - Charles Hodge expresses WHAT well?

Is the quote meant to affirm the "evangelical aspect" of the Sinaitic covenant or was that merely accidental to the point that Horton was trying to make by quoting Hodge?
Take note that the quote from Hodge begins with "*Besides this* evangelical character..."
Obviously, the main point being raised, is that which is besides the evangelical character.

Furthermore, you have to ask why does Horton have to qualify that opening sentence with an editorial statement - "["belongs to," not "is equivalent to"]"?
The answer to that, I believe, is that Horton was careful to make that distinction because he does not want us to read Hodge's statement in a way that it would appear as if Hodge was saying that the Sinai Covenant was a covenant of grace despite its "legal" character.

Now if you were to consider the rest of the quote apart from that first sentence, doesn't it appear to you that Horton's purpose in quoting Hodge is to support his thesis that the Sinaitic covenant is not an administration of the covenant grace but is more like a "suzerain treaty," which is conditional and breakable?


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Feb 12, 2011)

Joel, I think the following statement from Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" (which you've also quoted from above) would shed clearer light on my previous quotation of Horton's "evangelical" view of the Mosaic Covenant:



> Thus, it is not only the case that the covenant of promise (Abraham and his seed) appears as the solitary basis for real hope already in the Old Testament, but that it appears already in the Law itself—that is, the Law considered as Torah, the part of the Old Testament that is particularly concerned with the giving of the commands at Mount Sinai.—p.44.



Based on the previous quotation and this one above, it does appear that Horton sees the Covenant of Grace even in the Mosaic Covenant, as does Thomas Boston.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------




> Warren, you seriously need to ask, "What was the purpose of the quote from Hodge in this article?"
> "Charles Hodge expresses it well:" - Charles Hodge expresses WHAT well?
> 
> Is the quote meant to affirm the "evangelical aspect" of the Sinaitic covenant or was that merely accidental to the point that Horton was trying to make by quoting Hodge?
> ...



Plus the whole thrust of your argument above begs the question, since it already assumes an anti-CoG-in-the-Mosaic Covenant stance on the part of Horton, stating as a premise what still needs to be proven, when an unbiased reading of the quote would lead to a pro-CoG-in-the-Mosaic Covenant conclusion.

In fact, Horton's qualification, "_["belongs to," not "is equivalent to"]_," indicates an intentionality on his part to state that the Mosaic Covenant has an evangelical disposition (CoG) belonging to it.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 12, 2011)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Joel, I think the following statement from Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" (which you've also quoted from above) would shed clearer light on my previous quotation of Horton's "evangelical" view of the Mosaic Covenant:
> 
> 
> 
> > Thus, it is not only the case that the covenant of promise (Abraham and his seed) appears as the solitary basis for real hope already in the Old Testament, but that it appears already in the Law itself—that is, the Law considered as Torah, the part of the Old Testament that is particularly concerned with the giving of the commands at Mount Sinai.—p.44.



Warren,

It is one thing to say that the promise of the Abrahamic covenant was in effect during the Mosaic administration because the promise is immutable (Horton);
It is another thing to say that, at Sinai, two covenants were *"delivered"* (Boston).

How can you not get that? Don't let your zeal blind you to the finer details of what Horton is saying:

"it appears already in the Law itself—that is, *the Law considered as Torah*, the part of the Old Testament that is particularly concerned with the giving of the commands at Mount Sinai."

Do you know what the *Torah* is?
It is the *Pentateuch* - that "part of the Old Testament" (Horton's words) that consists of the first five books of the bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
Torah is commonly translated as Law in English because Law (and Sinai) finds a prominent place in the Pentateuch.

Horton's point here is that, in the same grouping of Scripture (all written by Moses), where you find the covenant made at Sinai (Exodus 20), we also find the Abrahamic covenant established (Genesis 15).

That's why Horton, in your quote says, "*Law considered as Torah*"; not Law as a covenant of works; not Law as the ten commandments.


Brother, I'm getting the impression that you are grasping at straws here simply to prove me wrong. The reason that I replied to you in the first place was to provide an answer to your question. Now, instead of dealing with my answer directly, previously, you have quoted from another work written by Horton and, when that didn't work, here you are trying to pit one paragraph of the book (which, In my humble opinion, you've misunderstood) with another paragraph which I've quoted. Horton can't get any plainer and clearer than this:



> "what happens at Sinai itself is not gracious"


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Feb 12, 2011)

Joel, I believe that's a quite simplistic reading of Horton's statement, for the sentence preceding that quote states:



> So even in the Law itself, *which emphasizes the personal obligation of each Israelite to fulfill the terms of the national covenant*, the attention shifts to the representative king who fulfills Israel's personal obligation and therefore the terms of the everlasting covenant. — p.44



Yes, I know what the Torah is (LOL), and Horton is not simply stating that Moses' corpus points to Christ, but that the Law itself, the Sinaitic Covenant, "_which emphasizes the personal obligation of each Israelite to fulfill the terms of the national covenant_" shifts the attention to Christ, which is nothing more than the potency of the Covenant of Grace.

So again, that quote of mine where Hodge is mentioned is in perfect alignment with the notion of Horton as seeing the CoG in the Sinaitic Covenant. In fact, the heading to the section where the quote was extracted from is "*Law (Covenant of Works) and Gospel (Covenant of Grace) in the Old Covenant*." Quite an unusual title for someone who supposedly does not see the CoG in the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## RTaron (Feb 13, 2011)

The bottom line here is that Horton is very confusing.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2011)

RTaron said:


> The bottom line here is that Horton is very confusing.


What’s happening to you guys here? 

No benefit of doubt, no gracious engagement, you dismiss one of your

most brilliant dogmaticians as confusing just because he can deal with a difficult

subject on a way that you don’t agree or is just not easy to follow? Come on?

Rev Buchanan in a couple of years I came here often to explicitly read your 

posts, my thank you record (the older one) testifies to that, you are one of the 

most coherent, solid, clear writer (I dare to say theologian) here at the PB.

I agree with most of what you wrote on this so far, it is not an easy topic,

We all agree on this. 

You even concede that:

Was there a covenant-of-works "motif" to the Old Covenant? Absolutely. And in that sense, the CoW was "republished" as it was connected to the ethico-religio conduct of the people.

Take Rev Keith on a parallel thread who also mentioned how he has been 

engaging this for a while and has no easy answers – surely he doesn´t give up 

saying Horton, VanDrunen, or Estelle are confusing.

But Rev Buchanan, when you mention the guys at WHI having it all wrong 

concerning the Pharisees, by saying they had it all right.

Do you really mean guys of that theological caliber forgot Mathew 23 (just to 

mention one saying of our Lord about the race of vipers)?

Can’t we be a bit more interacting and intelligent on this?

Rev Buchanan couldn’t it be that the guys at WHI were saying something altogether different? 

Geerhardus Vos wrote: this Pharisaical philosophy asserted that the law was 

intended, on a principle of merit, to enable Israel to earn the blessedness of the 

World to come. It was an Eschatological and therefore most comprehensive 

Interpretation. (Old and New Testaments Biblical Theology page 126)

Vos goes to pains to explain on not few pages the anthitesis – bordering the Paradoxical - purpose

of the Law for Israel. Israel was meant to be pointing to a Perfect Kingdom, an Over Realized 

Eschatological Figure of the Israel of God.

Couldn’t be more along these lines that the WHI were saying what they were saying?

First the WHI guys flirt with antinomianism (in In my humble opinion that is a ridiculous accusation - on this I suggest a reading on Vos concerning the Law, it might be

surprising, on these Turkish state of affairs) , guess what? next moment the WHI are praising the Pharisees?

It must be a dispensational parentheses before going full blooded at the throats of FVers and NPPers (we can’t blame them on this or can we?)

Maybe we are the ones who have to interact deeper and wider, not take a tree for the forest.

Let´s be fair in our theological assessments.

We may or not consider Republication as present in the Mosaic Covenant,

but who (certainly not Horton) is (or for that purpose could be) denying that from Genesis3:15 onwards 

there is Gospel all over the Pentateuch?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 14, 2011)

Cesar,
Thank you for being too kind about my contributions.

Not all the disagreement in here takes an extreme form. (For some persons it does, and I think that's unfortunate). I listen to the WHI because I am greatly blessed by it. I agree with far more than I disagree. But public statements, orally or in writing, are subject to public scrutiny. And so, disagreement with a formulation, or with something else, isn't a personal attack. It isn't even an accusation that someone is taking his own thought to the place that it seems to another person it points.

I don't think you'll find that I've stated positively that MHorton contradicts Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees. I can only repeat the statements he's made, which are a part of the conversations on the WHI. Others have quoted him from his writings. These are "popular" programs and writings, not always intended for those with the patience and training to get through many shades of meaning, and a tricky nuance or two.

When he says that the Rich Young Ruler was asking the "right" questions, based on a fair assessment of the Siniatic covenant as a legal covenant, I think most folks hearing him say that are not thinking down through multiple layers of theological strata, and differentiating between Sinai as a legal-covenant, and Sinai as an administration of the Covenant of Grace. They're hearing what he elsewhere writes purposefully, "What happens at Sinai itself is not gracious." As pointed out above, that statement is not, strictly speaking, in regular accord with the likes of Hodge and Boston, when their statements are taken in their own wider contexts. It is important to show that they might themselves have had something more to say respecting the newer formulations, especially if limited statements of theirs were being enlisted for support.

I think this kind of language is actually a step backwards in our appreciation of covenant theology. That's what I think, and I don't feel as though I shouldn't say as much, because then people will stop listening to all the *good things* that MHorton and Co. say and write; or some other bad product of an open and principled disagreement. 

The conversation on the WHI contains frequent disclaimers on the subject of antinomianism, which is good. They are addressing potiential objections in that department, no doubt because they've had enough real objections sent their way. But not every notion gets that disclaimer, and so far as I know, viewing Sinai _proper_ as a thoroughgoing, legal-in-nature covenant (so that it is ALL law, and a Works-Covenant per se) doesn't get much on-air nuance. It is presented as THE Reformation (Reformed and Lutheran) perspective.

Well, that view is more compatible with Lutheran than Reformed developments up through the Confessional era, however well it represents a common root. And there isn't anything personally hostile about pointing out that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence. On the one hand, I am very much appreciative of the work of WSC contributors who have resurrected the "law-gospel" distinction as a Reformed, not merely Lutheran, category. On the other hand, I'm not so content with a recasting of Sinai as strictly law. That cannot be squared with the Westminster identification of Sinai as an administration _in the first place_ of the Covenant of Grace.

WCF 7:5 speaks of the "time of the law" as distinguished from the "time of the gospel," but it leads off by saying "THIS COVENANT [ref. 7:4, "This covenant of GRACE..."] was differently administered..." So, 7:6 concludes, "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." The moral law (WCF19) was given first in Eden "as a covenant of works" (19:1), and repeated as "a perfect rule of righteousness" at Sinai. Both the similarities and the differences must receive correct emphasis there. And as a rule of righteousness, it serves a redeemed people properly under the category of Sanctification. Used as a Covenant of Works (for Justification), it is abused.

We should not adopt the convenient Lutheran hermeneutic of differentiating each proposition in Scripture as either law or gospel. The "magic bullet" solution, the "golden key" to unlock the mysteries of Scripture, is as fabled a hermeneutical quest as the Fountain of Youth, El Dorado, and the Holy Grail. There is no "template" we can (figuratively) lay atop the Bible, so that the hidden message is laid bare. It takes pains and prayer to wrestle (sometimes) with Scripture until it gives up its blessing. The Covenant of Grace, with Christ at its center, is a Reformed _principle_ that colors and characterizes our interpretation.

When we start talking about "what happens at Sinai" as being fundamentally "not gracious," we thus propose that in a material respect, Sinai should be examined according to the Covenant of Works. This is right in line with Kline's "upper and lower registers:" where we _*encounter*_ Sinai initially, below, it is legal, and should be realized legally; where we *go* with Sinai, heading above, we start to appreciate it spiritually. _This is shifting us in the direction of the baptists, who simply dispense with the "lower register" entirely once the New Covenant arrives._ We have a Christian duty to view Sinai the way it was intended from the beginning--properly--as fundamentally a gracious administration. That is one of the reasons for the importance of starting the hermeneutical task in Genesis with Abraham, rather than in Exodus at Sinai, see Gal. 3 & 4.

As I argued above, there is no simple mechanism by which we can decouple the Covenant of Grace elements inherent in (I think, from what I've heard/read, Kline/Horton would say "associated with") the Siniatic covenant, from the Covenant of Works elements. The difference is in the *participants*, something Heb.8:8 indicates when it speaks of the "fault" being "with them." The CoG is not an "advance" made _after_ the Work of Sinai is attempted again, and failed again. The CoG is "in your mouth and in your heart," Rom.10:8, quoting Dt.30:14. It is right there, in the midst of the law, yes even to its very core.

So, I think we make a mistake teaching and treating the Old Covenant as if the Pharisees actually understood its true nature in any material respect. What "rang" of the CoW in the law was _reminiscent_ of the first-covenant, the Edenic Covenant. The Israelites themselves were expected to view such commitments as they made as being "typological" commitments, while having an eye toward the Promise, and respecting the intent of the sacrifices. To the degree they could not and would not so receive the covenant, and were blinded by the glory of the Old Covenant, to that extent they were solidly engaged in the outward covenant administration alone, and were committed to works of service that they had promised but could not honor.

I think I can disagree with men I respect and admire, without being accused of malice toward them. And it _sounds_ at times as though they are saying more (for example) than Vos (in your quote), who I daresay does not credit the "Pharisaical philosophy" with having made an honest pitch at comprehending the Old Covenant, for all the effort they put into it. Buying into the back end of a paradox didn't earn the Pharisees title to that whole which they failed to grasp by faith. I say: the Rich Young Ruler was an abject _failure,_ and not true to his own testimony, when he said he had successfully kept the (outward) form of the law from his youth. And that is just the opposite of what I heard on the WHI.


----------



## RTaron (Feb 15, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> We should not adopt the convenient Lutheran hermeneutic of differentiating each proposition in Scripture as either law or gospel.



great post Bruce. very clear.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 23, 2011)

Rev. Buchanan

I stand corrected here! I was pretty unfair to you and I don't even disagree substancially with you on the topic.

Please forgive my unkind words. Of course I know your remarks on that particular whi episode must have been justified and taking

into the right account the context, clarity, audience, etc,

I should have known better. Thank you for your thoughtful, irenic and quite charitable thorough response.

I´ve got a bit sensitive (over sensitive I guess) concerning Mike Horton being criticized here on the PB, of course no one is above criticism,

never the less with what goes on out there in the jungle of evangelicalism, there is a certain latitude (not much is needed anyhow)

we must give to Confessional Reformed Theologians who are lifting high the Banner of Sovereign Grace. 

So your post became for me the proverbial drop of water, my outburst was totally unfair and unecessary. I'm sorry!

Please keep up the good work for His Kingdom, here, at your Church and where ever the Lord is using you.

Here your posts have certainly been illuminating to me. Thank you.


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 23, 2011)

This thread has been fun to chew on! I have a couple of thoughts that are in my mind as I worked my way through the thread. It seems to me that somewhere in the administration of the Mosaic Covenant there was grace. The Exodus or deliverance of God’s people out of bondage in Egypt was tied closely, if not directly, to God remembering the gracious covenant He had established with Abraham. ESV Exodus 2:2 "And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel‐‐and God knew." 
I have heard it said that God dealt graciously with his people in the Administration of the Mosaic Covenant, although, the thing that makes it unique is the introduction of Law that couldn't be kept by the people. It also seems to me that the Mosaic Covenant had a works‐principle built into it that was introduced that would constantly teach the children of Israel that they were sinful in need of redemption. In other words, the covenant itself was at least preparatory. 
Of course none of this is super easy for Presbyterians, since it seems as Fesko explains in his book that even the Westminster Divines were split. The famous Westminster Assembly
that ran from 1643‐1649 seemed to have maybe a total of 4 views at the assembly, on the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. In his book "The Law is not of Faith" he says discussing the Westminster Assembly, " I do not find in any point of divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abraham’s ram, hung is bush of briars and brambles by the head) as here." He was talking about the place of the Mosaic Covenant. So I find it hard to find my own way around the Mosaic Covenant. Seems that my Presbyterian Fathers were a little confused as well!


----------



## mvdm (Feb 23, 2011)

Gage Browning said:


> as Fesko explains in his book that even the Westminster Divines were split. The famous Westminster Assembly
> that ran from 1643‐1649 seemed to have maybe a total of 4 views at the assembly, on the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. In his book "The Law is not of Faith" he says discussing the Westminster Assembly, " I do not find in any point of divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abraham’s ram, hung is bush of briars and brambles by the head) as here."



It is Fesko who is confused or is confusing. While there were different minority viewpoints at the assembly, the Westminster Divines clearly settled on the view of the Mosaic as an administration of the covenant of grace, not a republication of the covenant of works. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. One would be ill advised to try to learn the role of the Mosaic in covenant theology from "TLNOF".


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 23, 2011)

Well you may be right about Fesko being confused, and you may not even like him or agree with him, but the quote I used for Fesko was made by I think the seventeenth century Puritan Anthony Burgess and I used it just to show that it's a difficult issue historically. I'm not trying to learn about the Mosaic Cov by reading Fesko. I used Fesko to just to show that there may have been some confusion at the Assembly. It seems to me there may have been up to 4 views at the Assembly. Some of the commissioners viewed it as a covenant of works. Some viewed as a mixed covenant of works and grace. Some viewed it as a subservient covenant to the Covenant of Grace and some simply viewed it as the Covenant of Grace itself. So I'm not sure it was as clear cut at the Assembly as you think. However, I agree with you that the Mosaic is an administration of the One COG, as Bavinck said, "On the one hand, therefore, the law was subservient to the covenant of grace; it was not a covenant of works in disguise and did not intend that humans would obtain justification by their own works On the other hand its purposewas to lay the groundwork for a higher and better dispensation of that same covenant of grace to come in the fullness of time." -Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3…Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20060),p. 222. I was merely trying to point out that historically it has been a difficult issue. Even in our most recent scholarly debates there seems to be 3 views:
(1.) The Mosaic Covenant is a gracious covenant from start to last. This view is a minority view and was held by some very good men like Robert L. Dabney
and John Murray.
(2.) The Mosaic Covenant is a mixed bag in that it is both a gracious extension of the Abrahamic Covenant and a covenant with a host of laws and demands.
This is probably the dominant view today. It is held by a number of very good men…men like Francis Turretin, O. Palmer Robertson and Louis Berkhof.
(3.) The Mosaic Covenant is a works covenant on a typological level. It holds that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works with Adam. This is an older view enjoying a bit revival. It is held by some very good men like Charles Hodge, Herman Witsius and Meredith Kline.

There may be other good men who are "confused", but it seems to be a difficult issue "historically".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 23, 2011)

I wouldn't put Hodge in that 3rd category. 

However I have never read a convincing argument that can put RoCoW into Chapter 7 of the WCF. Ch. 7, sect. 5 could not be more clear that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. In section 6 is even more clear the the "Law" does not differ in *substance* from the one Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 23, 2011)

Thanks Rev. Glaser! I have always put Hodge into the 3rd category. Interesting.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 24, 2011)

Gage Browning said:


> Well you may be right about Fesko being confused, and you may not even like him or agree with him, but the quote I used for Fesko was made by I think the seventeenth century Puritan Anthony Burgess and I used it just to show that it's a difficult issue historically. I'm not trying to learn about the Mosaic Cov by reading Fesko. I used Fesko to just to show that there may have been some confusion at the Assembly. It seems to me there may have been up to 4 views at the Assembly. Some of the commissioners viewed it as a covenant of works. Some viewed as a mixed covenant of works and grace. Some viewed it as a subservient covenant to the Covenant of Grace and some simply viewed it as the Covenant of Grace itself. So I'm not sure it was as clear cut at the Assembly as you think. However, I agree with you that the Mosaic is an administration of the One COG, as Bavinck said, "On the one hand, therefore, the law was subservient to the covenant of grace; it was not a covenant of works in disguise and did not intend that humans would obtain justification by their own works On the other hand its purposewas to lay the groundwork for a higher and better dispensation of that same covenant of grace to come in the fullness of time." -Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3…Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20060),p. 222. I was merely trying to point out that historically it has been a difficult issue. Even in our most recent scholarly debates there seems to be 3 views:
> (1.) The Mosaic Covenant is a gracious covenant from start to last. This view is a minority view and was held by some very good men like Robert L. Dabney
> and John Murray.
> (2.) The Mosaic Covenant is a mixed bag in that it is both a gracious extension of the Abrahamic Covenant and a covenant with a host of laws and demands.
> ...



2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, to think that the Mosaic Covenant would be just a Legal Meritorious Works Covenant would be just plain (in my opinion wrong) 
dispensationalism. 

In that sense the anthitesis Law - Gospel could be taken too far, I believe that is what Rev. Buchanan means, one can start pulling lines appart till

the fabric of Redemptive History is no longer solid, how could we understand the Gospel without the Law?

That's why we must keep preaching Law in our Churches, we must keep reading the Law in our Worship Services. 

But no sound Reformed theologian would defend any kind of Post-Lapsarian Individual Justification - Salvation on the basis of Works - Merit.

No Biblical Reformed Theologian thinks that the Mosaic Covenant is a parentheses in Redemptive History

No one even suggested any kind of suspension of the CoG, look at the word ATONEMENT in Leviticus, what could it be more Gracious?

Fesko, Estelle, Horton, Van Drunen et al (the Law is not of Faith authors) are Confessional Reformed Theologians.

For instance Kline, who refreshed, so to speak, Republication, was an ordained Minister in the OPC (like Fesko is), 
a life defender of the Westminster Standards.

We must be a bit more carefull pointing error and placing words in their writings that were never there.

To my knowledge all those Theologians agree that the CoG Genesis 3:15 covers the whole spectrum of Redemptive History (Historia Salutis - Salvation History,
come on, even a not very orthodox aka neo orthodox Lutheran like Oscar Cullmann sees it this way) .

The Merit Works fabric of the Mosaic Covenant is applied to Israel as a National Covenant in relation to the Land. 

Is this Typology and Protology ? Of course. The Second Adam, our Lord Jesus, fulfilled not only the personal obedience to the Law

that His sheep (since the Fall till Consumation) could never perfectly attain, clothing His Church with His Righteousness, but He also
was the Perfect Israel - from Egypt have I called my Son, 40 days (for the 40 years) in the Desert with a period of great Temptation,
the True Vine, the Temple rebuilt after 3 days, He is the true Kingdom of God and His Church (also His Church in the Desert Acts 7:14) united to Him, the Head, becomes the real Kingdom, the true Israel, the Israel of God. Not anymore an ethnic poltical territorial Kingdom till Consumation.

In that sense Israel as a Figure and Shadow of the Kingdom of God, was an over realized eschatological allegory pointing forward toits fulfillment in Christ, but also looking back REPLICATING what happened with the first Adam, Fall and Expulsion from Eden into Exile. 

You may ask, was Israel obedience as a Nation perfect? No it couldn't be, it was a Nation made of sinners needing redemption and santification.

But was God keeping Israel unconditionally in the Land? No, there was Exile, there was Captivity, even for regenerated justified by Grace men like Daniel or 
Jeremiah or Neemiah.

CoG is individual (with each man and his household like the Passover tells us so clearly), but there is a National Covenant for typological pedagogical purposes, replicating the Pre Lapsarian Covenant with Adam, that is the RoCoW.

In a time of revisionism concerning the Covenant of Works (that no denied in the Reformed Oryhodoxy period in the XVII cent.) that has a somehow a pedigree, Barth comes to mind, but from the Confessional Reformed Camp: John Murray, Klaas Schilder (the founder of my Denomination and I don't agree with him on this at all) , Clarence Stam, Palmer Robertson, Kamphuis, Berkouwer, etc, etc

It is very clear to me that the RoCoW is a very important doctrine that by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.

It may not be always an easy exegesis to aprehend or make, but as Scripture explains Scripture, it gives us a very timely and needed foundation to the Pre Lapsarian Covenant of Works between God and Adam. We surely need to affirm the Perspicuity of Scripture on this Vital Doctrine!


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 24, 2011)

> Is this Typology and Protology ? Of course. The Second Adam, our Lord Jesus, fulfilled not only the personal obedience to the Law



There is a sense in which Christ is Israel, and also a sense, on the other hand, in which He is the representative and head of Israel, but not Israel itself.

There may be a sense in which Israel points to Christ, but the typology is complex because there is such a close trelatiionship between Christ and His Old Covenant and New Covenant people. Indeed Christ even became one of the Covenant people; a Jew by circumcision and a Christian by baptism. Therefore Israel points as much, or more, to the NC Church as to Christ, and we can see ways in which the promises to Israel regarding the Land are fulfilled not so much in Christ Himself, but (also) in the Church.

But the Republicationists need to remember that Israel would have needed Christ even if she had been very godly and remained in the Land, because she would never have been sinlessly godly and the Lord was under no delusions that she would be.

Christians also in principle promise to be morally perfect in this life at conversion and at new obedience when they repent. But God knows they won't be and has made provision for that in the CoG.

Maybe the fact that she failed so spectacularly - and the fact that the New Covenant Church has been so ungodly too - emphasises the need for one Man to come from among the Covenant people, Jewish and Christian, to be the Covenant surety and mediator that will "stand in the gap". it will be our eternal song that Jesus of Nazareth did this admirably.


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 24, 2011)




----------



## discipulo (Feb 24, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> > Is this Typology and Protology ? Of course. The Second Adam, our Lord Jesus, fulfilled not only the personal obedience to the Law
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Richard, I totally agree with you, Palmer Robertson's the Israel of God is great on this. The Vine and the Living Branches - partaking of the administration

and the Life of the CoG and saddly some dead fruitless branches - only externally in the Covenant like Esaú

(Vos, Schilder, Berkhoff, didn't like the internal / external diferentiation - they prefered Legal / Vital - concern for over scholastic aristotelic distinctions I guess,

Ned Kloosterman has a good article on this, he doesn't mention scholasticism though, but Schilder was very concerned, because of Kuyper's speculations, 

on the dangers of scholasticism, Schilder was old school and yet he nailed Barth right on, well, now from Muller et al we know that fear is unfounded)

so In my humble opinion I believe Internal / External is a sound biblical covenantal terminology (while Legal / Vital could bring Law / Gospel back to the center of the Covenant

interesting to follow where this could lead.... ) anyway for me a good foundation for the Internal / External

_For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter._ Romans 2:28-29 see Deuteronomy 10 also)

Romans 9 brings it to an important tension

_For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel_

I agree with you Richard, Israel is also the Church, the Church in its younger age pointing in shadows and figures to Christ,

This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness Acts 7:38 Luke here uses Ekklesia, 

then Christ came and He appointed 12 apostles (like the 12 tribes of Israel).

Dispensationalists accuse us Reformed of Replacement Theology, but it is Reformed Theology that really does justice to Israel,

the Israel of God is no longer confined etnically, territorially, politically, it has both Jews and Gentiles, People bought by our Lord from every nation, tribe, tongue,

race, into the whole World. The Kingdom of God is finally beginning to fulfill the Cultural Mandate that Adam failed to do.

*But the Republicationists need to remember that Israel would have needed Christ even if she had been very godly and remained in the Land, because she would never have been sinlessly godly and the Lord was under no delusions that she would be. *

Richard, I don't see any reasons to be concerned over the so-called Republicationists on this.

They don't need to remember because they never forgot it, how could they?
Our blessed Reformed Sacramentology is deeply grounded on that, Francis Turrentin has a great passage in his Institutes showing

how Circumcision and Baptism are deeply related, like you mentioned also in Christ's fullfillment of the Law.

Indeed Paul doesn't allow them and us to forget!

_For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. _1 Corinthians 10:1-4

Wasn't also Moses a figure of Christ, telling of a future Prophet to come like himself, Deuteronomy 18:15-19, while Paul reveals in a deeper sense how Moses was a type - baptized into Moses - of the true Federal Head 

_Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? _Romans 6:3

please see the similar Sacramental terminology for the Church united to Christ in the following passage. _For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body Jews or Greeks, slaves or free and all were made to drink of one Spirit. _ 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

Republication never forgeting the pattern of redepmtive history: Creation Fall Redemption

complements it with Fall Exile Restoration in Israel as a post figure of Adam, who was also a figure of Christ (Romans 5:14)

Israel, also called God's son as Adam is called, also fails the Cultural Mandate, also fails to be Light to the Nations, also goes into exile.

But all of it is meant for the Glory of One and One Alone, it all like you wrote so well:

emphasises the need for one Man to come from among the Covenant people, Jewish and Christian, to be the Covenant surety and mediator that will "stand in the gap". it will be our eternal song that Jesus of Nazareth did this admirably. 

I think Richard we agree, mostly in everything. I am just trying to say that if your objections to Republicationism are founded, I will (would) share them.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 24, 2011)

Thanks for that, Cesar. I'm sure - hope- it is an intamural debate that will generate more light than heat.

I think it boils down to a question of what we believe is a CoW and what we believe is a CoG and whether, or how, we believe in maintaining that distinction. The language of republication is confusing from a systematic perspective.

In the archetypal CoW with Adam, the first Man would have purchased salvation for himself and his offspring by his own works.

In the CoG salvation is obtained for fallen and sinful Man by God in Christ.

In the case of the Israelites, who were sinners just like us, not perfect like Adam or Christ, they had typological mediators, Moses, the Judges, the Kings, the Priests and the Prophets, and they also had the finished work of Christ working backwards. 

They needed this just as much to keep prosperous tenure in the Land as to have personal salvation.

The Israelites weren't saved by their own works. If they had produced satisfactory works to remain in the Land it would have been evidence of God in Christ's gracious work in them, not cause for boasting. Their graciously-produced good works would have been graciously rewarded by God, as our are/will be.

The Israelites were just as dependant on the grace of God in Christ as we are, including for their earthly stay in the Land of Israel. So to talk of RoCoW is just plain confusing.

Are Republicationists saying that the Israelites could have purchased secure and prosperous tenure in the Land in their own strength. 

They were warned by God not to think this, but to depend on Him for everything.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 25, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Thanks for that, Cesar. I'm sure - hope- it is an intamural debate that will generate more light than heat.


 
Richard you've been more than patient with my quite erratic posts, Packer used to say the Puritans had cool heads and hot hearts, like we should have too.

I get a bit carried away by typology and protology, but it's such a blessing to find Christ in each page of Scripture.

I don't do any justice to the Doctrine of Republication, how could I, english is not my native language, and one thing is to read Theology another thing
is to understand it and write about it, I struggle with all of it

I just see you, in my opinion, over concerned about the Doctrine and those who defend it, the doctrine has a good old pedigree amongst Reformed Theologians,
maybe it is just a frame work hyphotesis (these last words are written with tongue on cheek, I know Kline is not popular because of this, and Kline did
more than a bit of influence in those who stand for Republication), an hermeneutical tool to reconcile the Mosaic Covenant with the Unity of the Covenant of Grace.

Is it artificial, is it going beyond the boundaries of Special Revelation? I couldn't say. It makes a lot of sense to me, it brings consistency to the reading of a 
CoW with Edenic Adam, it creates an inner stregnth of Law going back and forth Redemptive History, it keeps the Whole Story in Tension and Cohesion,
that is the tension we sense in Galatians, Romans, Hebrews. Law and Grace.

But for instance Murray (I was reading his booklet on the Covenant of Grace) flats the Mosaic Covenant easily in continuity with the Abrahamic Covenant, but again he turns the Adamic Covenant into a Gracious Covenant, so like with Berkouwer under Barth, Grace floods Redemptive History.

But while Water is always at the same level everywhere, Fire isn't.

There is Law and Consuming Fire in the Sinaitic Revelation, people couldn't even get near the Mountain on Fire. 

Are there Good News revealed? Certainly. But how to make the whole of the Mosaic Covenant Gracious? Even Moses didn't enter the promised land because of disobedience. Only the second generation did - typology of the new birth? - with the exception of Caleb and Joshua.

Ok, I leave a link to a blog from a fellow here on the PB, Tod Peddlar, quoting from the Marrow of Fischer, that Thomas Boston (very dear to your heart I'm sure) recovered from the oblivion of the unfair charge of antinomianism - Grace always seems too good to be true to us sinners. 

In Principio ... Deus: Marrow Theology: Republication of the Covenant of Works, part I


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 25, 2011)

I think we'll have to leave it there, just now Cesar.

"Republication of the Covenant of Works" seems to me a strange way of speaking about the Mosaic Covenant, or part thereof, because the grace of God to sinners was behind it all.

*E.g.*


> Even Moses didn't enter the promised land because of disobedience.



In the New Covenant we can miss out on many things because of sin - we may be struck down with an illness because of sin - but that doesn't make it a RoCoW.


----------

