# Dr. Clark's "A Brief History of Covenant Theology"



## Barnpreacher (Sep 2, 2006)

*Dr. Clark\'s \"A Brief History of Covenant Theology\"*

Dr. Clark,

Appreciated very much your article. I am a dispensational trained minister, so I wonder if you could expound on your second to last paragraph when you have the time. I am trying to get a better understanding of CT and this is one of the places that I get hung up.

"In reaction to Murray and Shepherd, Meredith Kline of Westminster Seminary in California has returned to the classic correlation between the Law and Gospel dichotomy and the dichotomy between the covenant of works and grace. To answer the liberals and dispensationalists, he has argued that there is one covenant of grace in the history of salvation, but that the Mosaic covenant, though gracious with respect to justification, had a works element relative to Israel's tenure in Canaan. In this way, the Mosaic theocracy becomes a re-publication of the covenant of works and a foreshadowing of Christ, the obedient 2nd Adam. Though it appears novel in our time, this view is quite traditional. His view that the Mosaic Covenant was a temporary, legal, superimposition upon the covenant of grace, though hinted at in the earlier tradition, is an development of the earlier theology."

If the C of Grace began in Genesis 3 and was consummated at Calvary then why did the C of Works play such an important role in O.T. history after Adam had failed as our federal head? What was the purpose? Was it simply to show that Christ would fulfill all of the C of Works for us? I don't understand CT's view of why God made such a big deal out of the Sinai Law, O.T. sacrifices etc. if the Covenant of Grace was already in effect for the elect.

Hebrews 9:1 says, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." 

This is referring to the Law, which in your article you explain that classic Reformed Orthodoxy believes is the C of Works. However, this had already been broken by Adam and could not be fulfilled by any other but our Second Adam. So why did God seem to keep it on the scene for so long according to CT? 

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by Barnpreacher]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 9, 2006)

> If the C of Grace began in Genesis 3 and was consummated at Calvary then why did the C of Works play such an important role in O.T. history after Adam had failed as our federal head?



Paul speaks of the Mosaic covenant as a "tutor." In Reformed theology, Christ, not national Israel, is at the center of redemptive history. Moses works for Jesus. In Dispensationalism, Moses is the master of the house, and Jesus is the servant. That, of course, is exactly backwards according to the book of Hebrews. 

So in Reformed covenant theology we see the Mosaic epoch in redemptive history as a legal tutor pointing Jews (and everyone else) to Christ. The 613 mitzwoth were intended to teach Israel the greatness of her sin and misery. That's why Paul calls the Mosaic covenant "the old covenant." He doesn't describe the entire epoch that way, though everything before Christ is the time of types and shadows. He says that the Mosaic covenant was the old covenant the glory of which is fading. So too in Hebrews, it is the Mosaic covenant that is old etc. The new is new in contrast to Moses specifically, not so much Abraham. When Paul needs a paradigm for the New Covenant believer, he does not turn to Moses, but to Abraham. 

Hence, Reformed theology often spoke of the Mosaic covenant as a sort pedagogical republication of the covenant of works. In the 17th century elaborate explanations were developed to explain in what ways it was in force and in what ways it had been "abrogated." Clearly, no sinner is able, after the fall, to fulfill the law and earn justification. Jesus, however, is no sinner! He was able to fulfill the covenant of works and did.

So the covenants of works and grace, operating on different principles, were said to operate side by side in certain respects. This is part of the administration of redemptive. 

As a matter of salvation, sinners are justified only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. From Gen 3 to the crucifixion, believers looked forward to the fulfillment of the promised coming of the "seed of the woman." Paul says that "seed" was Christ. Paul says that Moses was "superimposed" temporarily 400 years after the inauguration of the Abrahamic promise in order to facilitate the fulfillment of that promise but not to change its basic terms: justification sola gratia, sola fide.



> What was the purpose? Was it simply to show that Christ would fulfill all of the C of Works for us? I don't understand CT's view of why God made such a big deal out of the Sinai Law, O.T. sacrifices etc. if the Covenant of Grace was already in effect for the elect.



We make a big deal out of it because God did! It's a major part of the progress of redemption. We should pay attention not only to the beginning and the end of the story of redemption but to the historical outworking of the middle. The story of Israel is the story of the administration of the covenant of grace. It is the story of the church from 1500 BC to 33 AD or so. It is our history. Why bother studying any history? Because it tells us about the nature of redemption, the nature of the Christian life, the nature of our God and redeemer and so forth.

On this see Vos, Biblical Theology. We need both Systematics and BT, i.e., the story of the process of redemption. After all, our Savior became incarnate as a Jewish man, under the law for us. It behooves us to know a little bit about our Savior's history.

Further, the same Son of God who became incarnate was leading us through the wilderness. He was feeding us with Manna. He was thundering at Sinai. He was clothing Adam and Eve. Paul says, "That rock was Christ." Jesus says, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced." Jesus taught the disciples to read the history of redemption in Luke 24 from all of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures. St Stephen, at his death, rehearsed the history of redemption from the Hebrew Scriptures. 



> Hebrews 9:1 says, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." This is referring to the Law, which in your article you explain that classic Reformed Orthodoxy believes is the C of Works.



Not exactly. They aren't identical. Moses was a covenant of works relative to the land not salvation. Were we to say that we would be Scofieldian and we aren't and don't! See the many discussions about this on this list. See also my site where there are lots of documents relative to this whole business.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark

See the Systematic, Covenant, and Exegetical Theology pages for lots of links on these things. 

Read Mike Horton's new book on Covenant Theology. It's an excellent introduction to these issues.

After that see H. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants (2 vols).

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Q. 15.

Best,

rsc


----------

