# Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF



## SRoper

Today I asked someone if he had read Michael Horton's _God of Promise_. He said that he hadn't, but he heard that Horton is "not quite on board" with the WCF on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm wondering what the difference is between the WCF and Horton if any.


----------



## Davidius

SRoper said:


> Today I asked someone if he had read Michael Horton's _God of Promise_. He said that he hadn't, but he heard that Horton is "not quite on board" with the WCF on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm wondering what the difference is between the WCF and Horton if any.



I read _God of Promise_ when I first began to study Covenant Theology. I believe Horton views the Mosaic Covenant as a renewal of the Covenant of Works instead of a renewal of the Covenant of Grace with a clearer understanding of the law contained therein.


----------



## AV1611

*Subscribing*

​


----------



## dannyhyde

I've read it...what exactly is your question?


----------



## S. Spence

I cannot recommend 'God of Promise' enough; it's a fantastic read. 

Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology. 

Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace. 

I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.


----------



## Davidius

S. Spence said:


> I cannot recommend 'God of Promise' enough; it's a fantastic read.
> 
> Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.
> 
> Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.
> 
> I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.



Thanks for clarifying it more than I was able.


----------



## Archlute

I agree with the particular view discussed, but I don't think that it can be said that it is necessarily the classic view of covenant theology, in as much as there are several views held regarding the Mosaic administration among older writers. Turretin and Witsius both have things to say regarding this. I believe that Witsius embraces it, Turretin recognizes it as a valid viewpoint among the Reformed w/o subscribing in all the details, Hodge mentions it in his commentary on 2 Corinthians. 

Like I said, I think it is correct, and only makes sense of the big picture, but I was actually labeled as teaching heresy by an ill-informed OPC pastor during a summer internship, who took me aside in his office to proclaim that if I ever taught it again he would bring me up on charges. He refused to apologize and acknowledge that this view was embraced by older Reformed theologians, even after I showed him the hard evidence. It sure seems to get some folks blood boiling, although I have never been quite sure why it does so. Just be prepared with your evidence.


----------



## MW

This is not "classic" covenant theology, but an inept modern justification of it.

The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.

The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

Look before you cross the road!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## crhoades

armourbearer said:


> It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.


 
Would you do me a favor and flesh this out a bit for me. Never seen this argument before. Or if you know of a place it is detailed further, point me in the direction. 

Thanks!


----------



## aleksanderpolo

S. Spence said:


> however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation.



I am struggling with this issue too. Didn't Israel sin and broke the law at Mt Sinai and repeatedly afterwards, and in spite of that, God still brought them into the land? That to me sounds more like CoG than CoW, even with respect to the land promise. In contrast, in CoW, there is no grace in breaking the law...

I love listening to WHI, and am under the impression that Horton loves to emphasize the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the conditional nature of Mosaic covenant. And I have a hard time squaring it with Genesis 17. To me it seems, in Genesis 17 God's land promise to Abraham is tie up to Abraham's responsibility to "walk before me, and be blameless" and to circumcise his children, just as the land promise in the Mosaic covenant is tie up to Israel keeping the law. So, I am not sure why on one hand we can say Mosaic covenant is a republication of CoW in a typological sense, on the other hand the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant both have typological fulfillment (i.e. land promise) and responsibility, but they are not regarded as a republication of CoW. (I am not advocating that they should be regarded as republication of CoW at all)

I know this topic has been brought up repeatedly, and I really appreciate all previous responses. I am probably not informed enough to make up my mind at the moment...


----------



## MW

crhoades said:


> Would you do me a favor and flesh this out a bit for me. Never seen this argument before. Or if you know of a place it is detailed further, point me in the direction.



I'm not sure what you would like fleshed out -- the idea of reduplication of the covenant of works, or the fact that it undermines continuity of the covenant of grace?


----------



## crhoades

armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure what you would like fleshed out -- the idea of reduplication of the covenant of works, or the fact that it undermines continuity of the covenant of grace?


The whole inclusion of infants part and how that is undermined...


----------



## MW

Let's take Horton's quotation of Robertson on p. 96. Robertson follows the traditional line: "Law under Moses never was intended to function apart from promise. Separated from its promise-dimension, which reached its fulfilment in Christ, law never could provide a way for making sinners righteous." On this line of thinking we see that Israel is constituted a nation under God by grace. The law was added because of transgression, and to bind Israel into the true religion until Christ comes.

Now Horton responds. On p. 97 he approvingly quotes Kline: "the Sinaitic covenant as such ... 'made inheritance to be by law, not by promise -- not by faith, but by works.'" (The theology of Numbers alone refutes this, but let's keep to the matter at hand.) Horton argues the theocracy is a renewed law covenant, and so on and so forth.

However, who is the party to this law-covenant? It is the nation, the theocracy. What is promised? The inheritance. How was it obtained? By works. Now let us ask, On what basis were infants circumcised? On the basis that they belonged to the covenant-nation and had right to the inheritance? Which covenant gives them right to the inheritance? The covenant of works. It has all gone terribly wrong, I regret to say.


----------



## Arch2k

armourbearer said:


> The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.
> 
> The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Look before you cross the road!


 
While I have not read "God of Promise" myself, and enjoy listening to Micheal Horton, I generally agree with these criticisms. The Mosaic Covenant should be looked at in the framework of the Covenant of Grace. While systematically, the three-fold use of the law exists within the giving of the law, the context of the ten-commandments warrants the 3rd use as primary. First the indicative, then the imperative.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

Now, do this...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Here are some sources on republication along with some commentary culled from Heidelblog. 

Did every Reformed theologian in the 17th century teach republication? No. Was it widely taught? Yes. Did they work out the details thoroughly? No. It's there, however. I'm sorry for the rough shape of some of these source references. They are culled from an old paper by Lee Irons. I need to go back and track down these and other sources and clean them up, but they serve to give the idea that the idea of republication certainly existed in the 17th century.
--



> For that the Old Testament did serve specially to prepare men to receive Christ, which in his appointed time was to come. For law was a schoolmaster unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). Therefore the greatest part of the Old Testament is spend propounding, repeating, and expounding the covenant of works. And because Christ was not yet manifested in the flesh, therefore the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is more sparingly and darkly set forth in it (Robert Rollock, Treatise of Effectual Calling, p. ___)
> 
> The testament is new in relation to what existed from the time of Moses and in relation to the promise made to the fathers. But it is new not in essence but in form. In the former circumstances the form of administration gave some evidence of the covenant of works, from which this testament is essentially different.
> 
> Since the complete difference between the new covenant and the old appeared only in the administration which came after Christ, this administration is properly termed the covenant and testament which is new. This differs also from the former administration in quality and quantity. Its difference in quality is in clarity and freedom. Clarity occurs, first in the more distinct expression than heretofore of the doctrine of grace and salvation through Christ and through faith in him ... Freedom comes, first, in doing away with government by law, or the intermixture of the covenant of works, which held the ancient people in a certain bondage. (Ames, Marrow, 206)
> 
> The covenant of works is that in which God promiseth everlasting life unto a man that in all respects performeth perfect obedience to the law of works, adding thereunto threatenings of eternal death, if he shall not perform perfect obedience thereto. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, whilst he was in the first estate of integrity: the same covenant God did repeat and make again by Moses with the people of Israel (Amandus Polanus, Syntagma, ___)
> 
> The second administration of this covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; where, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue first graven in man’s heart, God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his neighbour, expressed in the decalogue; according to the tenor of which law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness, upon condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded; which condition they accepted of, promising an absolute obedience, Exod. xix.8, “All things which the Lord hath said we will
> do;” and also submitting themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, “Amen” to the curse of the law, “Cursed be every one that confirmeth not all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen. (William Premble, ____)
> 
> It pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period [from Moses to Christ] under a rigid legal economy – both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set
> forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed. In this respect, the law is called the letter that kills (2 Cor. 3:6) and the handwriting which was contrary to us (Col. 2:14), because by it men professed themselves guilty and children of death, the declaration being written by their own blood in circumcision and by the blood of victims
> 
> According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it ... On the part of the people, [this external economy of legal teaching] was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom. 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.
> (Turretin, 2.227)
> 
> Their fall in Adam was almost forgotten [by the Jews] ... Nay, in that long course of time betwixt Adam and Moses, men had forgotten what was sin ... Rom. v.20, therefore, “the law entered,” that Adam’s offense and their own actual transgression might abound, so that now the Lord saw it needful, that there should be a new edition and publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect unbelievers to come to Christ, the promised seed, and that the grace of God in Christ to the elect believers might appear the more exceeding glorious (Marrow of Modern Divinity, 61)
> 
> 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 the sanctions thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed (Thomas Boston's Annotations of the Marrow, 56).
> 
> Owen, Commentary on Hebrews vol 6.80-81
> 
> Witsius, Economy, 2.359
> 
> The Apostle Gal. 4.24 ... mentions a double covenant, the former of which is “by works of the law” ... If you say the Apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the Apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is re-enacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works (Peter Van Mastricht, ___)


--

As Mike Horton acknowledges in his recent work on covenant theology, one of the more difficult issues in covenant theology is how to relate the Mosaic covenant to the earlier Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Complicating matters is the old Dispensational doctrine that there are different ways of salvation under different "dispensations." I recognize that the more modern Dispensationalists abandoned that doctrine but the damage has been done. Not only is it virtually impossible, rhetorically, for Reformed folk to use the word "dispensation" (even though we used to use it regularly and it's quite useful word in describing the progress of redemptive history) without creating suspicion and confusion but there are lots of folk out there who read the Bible atomistically (chopping it up) and who think that we Christians have nothing to do with Abraham! Dispensationalism has also created a layer of difficulty by generating a reaction against Dispensationalism which has caused reluctance among some Reformed folk to recognize any differences between the Old (Moses) and New (Christ) Covenants. In their own ways, both the Dispensationalists and those who react against it flatten out the hills and valleys of redemptive history. The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.

One of the interesting and useful features of the older (classic) covenant theology of the 17th century was the doctrine of "re-publication." It was widely held among 17th-century Reformed theologians that, in certain ways, the giving of the Law at Sinai was a "re-publication" of the Law given in the garden to Adam as part of the covenant of works (John Owen, Herman Witsius, Leonard van Rijssen, Johannes Marckius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston taught it). They took the promulgation of the law at Sinai as evidence of the covenant of works in the garden with Adam. They thought this way because they had a doctrine of natural or creational law, i.e., there is a moral law that was given in the garden that is reflected in the law given at Sinai.

This re-publication of the Law was not a new "Dispensation" of salvation or way of being justified. Rather, the Mosaic national covenant with Israel was regarded by the Reformed as operating on multiple levels at the same time. As Paul says in Gal 3, the covenant of grace, the Abrahamic covenant is the administration of God's saving grace. It was and remains a covenant of grace. Paul's argument is that nothing about the Mosaic national covenant that changes God's promises made to and through Abraham. Hence Paul says that Abraham (Rom 3-4) is the father of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e., Jew and Gentile) before Moses, during the Old Covenant, and since.

Thus, before, during, and after the Mosaic national covenant, all the elect were saved and justified by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solo Christo). So what was unique about the Mosaic national covenant? Three things:

1) It was a national covenant. Neither the Abrahamic covenant nor the New Covenant were or are national. The Mosaic covenant had a civil and religious/ceremonial code embedded in it. The Mosaic covenant constituted Israel as a national people temporarily. The national covenant was very much about "insiders" and "outsiders." That's not to say that Gentiles could not be initiated. Quite to the contrary, they certainly were, but in so doing, they had to become ritually Israelite through circumcision. This national (civic and ceremonial) aspect distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the Abrahamic and the New Covenants which were and are not national but trans-national.

One of the more important conclusions from this doctrine is one that our 17th century forefathers did not recognize very clearly is that the idea of a national covenant is defunct. God doesn't enter into national covenants with any national entity since the crucifixion. Christ's kingdom, expressed in his visible, institutional church through the preaching of the gospel, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline, knows no national boundaries (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2). The dividing wall (the civil and ceremonial laws, circumcision) has been broken down in the body of Jesus, the true Israel of God. After the expiration of the national covenant, the kingdom of God has no civil administration. Attempts to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration whether in theocracy or theonomy are fundamentally misguided. It is a puzzle how we can see so clearly that the Roman attempt to resurrect the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant is wrong but some cannot see how wrong it is to try to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration?

2) It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel's status as the temporary national people of God. In Exod 24, Israel swore a blood oath that she, as a national people, would keep the law and it was on this legal basis that Israel was ultimately expelled from the promised land and on which basis she lost her status as the national people of God. Another layer of difficulty in this regard is that, as it seems to me, Israel broke this national covenant before the terms of the agreement were even delivered down the mountain! That pattern continued throughout her history so that the only reason that Israel retained the national covenant at all was the forebearance of God. Certainly Israel did not strictly merit retaining the national covenant. See Iain Duguid's chapter in CJPM. covenant justification cover.jpg

3) It was temporary. The Mosaic national covenant was instituted about (depending on the date of the Pentateuch) 15 centuries before the Advent of Christ and it expired with the crucifixion of Christ. The New Testament makes clear (e.g., Acts 10; Acts 15; 2 Cor 3; the book of Hebrews!) the Mosaic Covenant is finished. It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments. At every point in their daily lives the Israelites were reminded of their sin and need for a Savior. Corporately, Israel served as the world's largest and longest and most colorful sermon illustration. Thus the writer to the Hebrews (ch. 2) says that Moses worked for Jesus. Moses' whole reason for being was to serve as a pointer to Christ (and as a pointer to the ultimate realities in heaven; see Heb 11).

Finally, it has been argued by some (e.g., some of my friends on the Puritanboard) that the doctrine of re-publication is "unconfessional." To this I appeal to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1. This reading of the confession caused Thomas Boston, in his notes in E. F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scarsdale, NY: Westminster Discount Books, n.d.), 58, to exclaim,

How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see.” These same theologians also held that Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. The doctrine of unity of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of republication were regarded as complementary not antithetical. 


I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication. If you want to research this here are some leads:

See Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (1803; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 1,336–337; Leonard van Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae (Amsterdam: 1695.), 89. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 6.85. Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae (Amsterdam, 1749), 345–346; Peter Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 3 vols (Utrecht: 1699), 3.12.23.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication.



Prof. Clark, are you able to show one of the "republication" sources advocating the nation was under a republished covenant of works? I seriously doubt it.

Could the theory be any more contradictory? The Abrahamic covenant is supposed to be one of grace. What was Abraham promised? A seed and a land. All that is done by God in the Mosaic era is specifically said to be in faithfulness to the covenant made with the fathers. What has God done? Multiplied the seed into a nation, establishing the covenant privilege given to Abraham, and reaffirming the gift of the promised land. But then we are asked to believe that the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace issues in the establishment of a Mosaic republication of the covenant of works.

I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity.

Concerning national covenanting, you have to plow with reformed theology's heifer if you want to find out reformed theology's riddle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## G.Wetmore

S. Spence wrote:


> Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.
> 
> Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.
> 
> I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.



R.Scott Clark wrote:


> As Mike Horton acknowledges in his recent work on covenant theology, one of the more difficult issues in covenant theology is how to relate the Mosaic covenant to the earlier Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Complicating matters is the old Dispensational doctrine that there are different ways of salvation under different "dispensations." I recognize that the more modern Dispensationalists abandoned that doctrine but the damage has been done. Not only is it virtually impossible, rhetorically, for Reformed folk to use the word "dispensation" (even though we used to use it regularly and it's quite useful word in describing the progress of redemptive history) without creating suspicion and confusion but there are lots of folk out there who read the Bible atomistically (chopping it up) and who think that we Christians have nothing to do with Abraham! Dispensationalism has also created a layer of difficulty by generating a reaction against Dispensationalism which has caused reluctance among some Reformed folk to recognize any differences between the Old (Moses) and New (Christ) Covenants. In their own ways, both the Dispensationalists and those who react against it flatten out the hills and valleys of redemptive history. The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.



Here is one of the main problems with Klinean covenantalism. Notice how the Mosaic covenant is on the one hand affirmed as being part of the covenant of grace (but only in a strange technical sense). Yet, after that affirmation is made, it seems to be rejected and we are told that the Mosaic covenant is a re-publication of the covenant of works. This is how it basically works. The reason that the Mosaic covenant is said to be part of the covenant of grace is that it occurs during the administration of the Abrahamic covenant! Notice how Dr. Clark says that the real continuity is between Abraham and Christ, not Moses. Furthermore, Dr. Horton says that the Mosaic covenant (of works) simply didn't annul the promise made to Abraham (of grace). Therefore, the question that the Klinean covenantalists (like Dr. Horton and Dr. Clark) need to answer is whether or not the mosaic covenant ITSELF was part of the covenant of Grace, apart from it's being delivered during the Abrahamic Covenant. They seem to think it was part of the covenant of grace simply because someone during it's adminstration was saved by faith, not because of the Mosaic covenant, but because of the Abrahamic. Therefore, with that logic, the Mosaic covenant, ITSELF, was part of the covenant of works. But, that covenant of works didn't negate the covenant of grace given to Abraham. Notice again what Dr. Clark says:


> The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.


 According to Dr. Clark the only thing that makes the Mosaic covenant part of the Covenant of Grace is that those who participated in that Covenant were saved by the grace promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant itself was not part of the covenant of Grace, it was simply administered during the era of the covenant of grace!


----------



## S. Spence

I don't really like writing on the behalf of Mike Horton, however just thought I should respond to this:



> According to Dr. Clark the only thing that makes the Mosaic covenant part of the Covenant of Grace is that those who participated in that Covenant were saved by the grace promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant itself was not part of the covenant of Grace, it was simply administered during the era of the covenant of grace!



I believe that while Dr Horton does believe the Mosaic covenant to be a republication of the C of W to some extent, he still sees it as an administration of the C of G. This is because the Mosaic covenant 'flows' directly from the Abrahamic.

Exodus 2....
23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. *24 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.

Just another point:


> Originally Posted by armourbearer
> It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, *there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace*.



I can understand your logic Rev. Winzer and I'm fearful to disagree from you as I have greatly benefited from your posts in the past. However up and until I read 'God of Promise' I was a Reformed Baptist and it was actually through reading this book that I moved from the baptist position to the paedobaptist position.


----------



## AV1611

You may fin these interesting:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/works_in_mosaic_cov.pdf

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/KarlbergMarkReformedInterpretationMosaic.htm

The above are excellent in my opinion.  

I found Gill helpful:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_06.htm

First, The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). *Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration*; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). *It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it*: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). *But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it.*​
See also:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_31.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_32.htm

If you feel like it here is Crisp's sermon _The Two Covenants of Grace_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## G.Wetmore

S. Spence said:


> I don't really like writing on the behalf of Mike Horton, however just thought I should respond to this:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that while Dr Horton does believe the Mosaic covenant to be a republication of the C of W to some extent, he still sees it as an administration of the C of G. This is because the Mosaic covenant 'flows' directly from the Abrahamic.
> 
> Exodus 2....
> 23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. *24 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.



Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.


----------



## S. Spence

> Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.



I can't, I've actually lent the book to someone else!
However if I have taken some of what Dr Horton says out of context I apologise.


----------



## non dignus

When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.


----------



## crhoades

non dignus said:


> When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.


I am in the covenant of grace. If I do not love the law and do as it commands and effectively disrespect my boss at work (5th commandment) and am lazy (stealing) then why would I not get kicked out of my job? Does that mean that I am participating in the covenant of works or that even in the CoG actions have consequences? The Father still disciplines us even when we are truly a part of the CoG.

This is a long drawn out way of saying that even as Christians as a part of the CoG there still is the third use of the law as well as consequences for breaking it.


----------



## non dignus

Good analogy, Chris. My point is that your job is not a covenant of grace. It is God's grace that you work, but the covenant with your boss is strictly performance based.


----------



## crhoades

non dignus said:


> Good analogy, Chris. My point is that your job is not a covenant of grace. It is God's grace that you work, but the covenant with your boss is strictly performance based.


 
Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time!  

I think the point I was making that there isn't a covenant with my boss. In other words, there isn't a CoW within my larger CoG but rather it is the 3rd use of the law within my larger CoG. Even Abraham had stipulations/conditions within the unconditional CoG. Abraham had to walk uprightly and when he didn't he had to pay the consequences. I would say that sleeping with your maidservant might have caused some not so good consequences between him and Sarah. That doesn't mean that there was a republication of the CoW with Abraham. 

I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I'm making sense. I am more than eager for everyone to sharpen this rusty piece of iron in regards to covenenat theology.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

non dignus said:


> When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.



But they broke the law the minute the law was given, God still led them into the land and establish the kingdom, shouldn't that be viewed as more in line with CoG regarding the national promise? In CoW there is no grace in sinning 
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, *for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die*.

I am not disagreeing that there are "do this and live" language in the Mosaic covenant, but there are similar language in the Abrahamic covenant:

Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; *walk before me, and be blameless*

Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; *he has broken my covenant*.

And when God established His covenant with David's son:

1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house that you are building, *if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them*, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.

Both of the covenant contain typological fulfillment (land promise, earthly kingdom) that are temporary in nature, should we also regard them as a republication of CoW in a typological sense?

Or, would it be more accurate to say that CoG is a CoW fulfilled by Christ, therefore CoG intrinsically contain laws and commandment (that are to be fulfilled by Christ, Abraham certainly isn't blameless before God, his inheriting the land is according to grace, just like the Israelite). Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenant all contain law and commandments, the law in Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the CoW, but an expansion and exposition of the law in the CoG that is present but not at the forthfront of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant?

I am confused...


----------



## non dignus

crhoades said:


> Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time!
> 
> I think the point I was making that there isn't a covenant with my boss. In other words, there isn't a CoW within my larger CoG but rather it is the 3rd use of the law within my larger CoG. Even Abraham had stipulations/conditions within the unconditional CoG. Abraham had to walk uprightly and when he didn't he had to pay the consequences. I would say that sleeping with your maidservant might have caused some not so good consequences between him and Sarah. That doesn't mean that there was a republication of the CoW with Abraham.



I will ponder that 3rd use idea. But I think the job, like Sinai, is a works covenant that is overlaid the greater CoG so that they are working in tandem.


> I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I'm making sense. I am more than eager for everyone to sharpen this rusty piece of iron in regards to covenenat theology.



I'm working through this too. Thanks for the sharpening!


----------



## non dignus

aleksanderpolo said:


> But they broke the law the minute the law was given, God still led them into the land and establish the kingdom, shouldn't that be viewed as more in line with CoG regarding the national promise? In CoW there is no grace in sinning
> Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, *for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die*.
> 
> I am not disagreeing that there are "do this and live" language in the Mosaic covenant, but there are similar language in the Abrahamic covenant:
> 
> Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; *walk before me, and be blameless*
> 
> Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; *he has broken my covenant*.
> 
> And when God established His covenant with David's son:
> 
> 1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house that you are building, *if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them*, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.
> 
> Both of the covenant contain typological fulfillment (land promise, earthly kingdom) that are temporary in nature, should we also regard them as a republication of CoW in a typological sense?
> 
> Or, would it be more accurate to say that CoG is a CoW fulfilled by Christ, therefore CoG intrinsically contain laws and commandment (that are to be fulfilled by Christ, Abraham certainly isn't blameless before God, his inheriting the land is according to grace, just like the Israelite). Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenant all contain law and commandments, the law in Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the CoW, but an expansion and exposition of the law in the CoG that is present but not at the forthfront of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant?
> 
> I am confused...



I'm still learning this too. I believe much confusion arises when we picture the Abrahamic' and Mosaic' as running in a serial configuration rather than in parallel configuration. It was for Abraham's sake, not 'Moses', that God was gracious during the probation of Israel. 

Remember Christ was born under the law in order to fulfill what Adam failed to do. 
Christ,the second Adam was placed under a second works probation.


----------



## crhoades

non dignus said:


> I will ponder that 3rd use idea. But I think the job, like Sinai, *is a works covenant that is overlaid the greater CoG* so that they are working in tandem.
> 
> I'm working through this too. Thanks for the sharpening!


 
So when you say "is a works covenant" are you meaning that the idea that salvation _could have been had_ if they walked accordingly to the law? Isn't that what the CoW was about? Attaining everlasting life? I think that perhaps the concept that everywhere we see law we see CoW is the point of stumbling? Is there any reason why there could not be law given with consequences as a part of the gracious covenant? Again, we would all hold to the third use of the law within the CoG so why could that not apply within the Mosaic administration of the CoG? Is there a _necessity_ for making it CoW republication or is there another possible explanation? 

These are questions that I have -not necessarily addressed to you - but to everyone.

I'm hoping to sort through these matters.


----------



## non dignus

crhoades said:


> So when you say "is a works covenant" are you meaning that the idea that salvation _could have been had_ if they walked accordingly to the law? Isn't that what the CoW was about? Attaining everlasting life?



If I understand the question: Yes, if they had walked according to the law they would have only retained the land with all commensurate benefits. 

The Mosaic' is typological of salvation and condemnation under the original (now lapsed) CoW which is still running parallel to the CoG .


----------



## spicedparrot

*Lutheran similarities*

Is it me or does anyone else see the connections between this schema of republication of the covenant of works to be remarkably similar to the confessional Lutheran theologians descriptions of "Law" and "Gospel"? I find the parallels interesting. Of course, I think this view of the Covenant Theology should also lead one to a higher view of the sacraments and their importance in the covenant renewal ceremony.


----------



## MW

S. Spence said:


> I can understand your logic Rev. Winzer and I'm fearful to disagree from you as I have greatly benefited from your posts in the past. However up and until I read 'God of Promise' I was a Reformed Baptist and it was actually through reading this book that I moved from the baptist position to the paedobaptist position.



You shouldn't be fearful to disagree with me; your disagreement may force me to become clearer in my thinking, which is a good thing. I'm glad God of Promise was helpful to you. I wouldn't want to give the impression I think the book is useless, and certainly wouldn't want to undermine your conviction concerning infant baptism. Not at all. But from a traditionalist's perspective the work tries to wed too much modern thinking within the classic schema, and that is what I find problematic. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm hesitant to add thoughts on this because I am no expert on either the traditionalist view on this or the Klinean view. I've certainly seen the material but am in no way qualified to fully critique it.

It is hard for me sometimes to figure out where the objection to Dr. Horton might be more distinctly Presbyterian.

I have read the book and found it very helpful but primarily in the realm of the discussion of the Sacraments and fleshing those ideas out a bit more for me. I'll be honest, however, that I don't know that I completely like the way that Abraham, Moses, and David are introduced. It seems that suzerain treaty language is used just as much as Scriptural language. I think it's interesting to see parallels to Hittite suzerain treaties but to couch your language based on patterns seen in other Near Eastern documents makes things harder for me to appreciate at times rather than easier.

I believe the basic idea is preserved about the type of the Old Covenant in Moses is not the Abrahamic promise but a "binding up" period in both schemas. Let's be honest here that Paul does not take a great deal of time in Galatians and other places explaining what he means by his terms but it is clear that the Law came after Abraham and had a distinct character from the promise that was made.

I think Dr. Horton makes this notion very clear in the text but I'm still skeptical about all the Royal Grant/Suzerain treaty language utilized.


----------



## G.Wetmore

R. Scott Clark said:


> The New Testament makes clear (e.g., Acts 10; Acts 15; 2 Cor 3; the book of Hebrews!) the Mosaic Covenant is finished. It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments. At every point in their daily lives the Israelites were reminded of their sin and need for a Savior. Corporately, Israel served as the world's largest and longest and most colorful sermon illustration. Thus the writer to the Hebrews (ch. 2) says that Moses worked for Jesus. Moses' whole reason for being was to serve as a pointer to Christ (and as a pointer to the ultimate realities in heaven; see Heb 11).





> SemperFideles:
> I believe the basic idea is preserved about the type of the Old Covenant in Moses is not the Abrahamic promise but a "binding up" period in both schemas. Let's be honest here that Paul does not take a great deal of time in Galatians and other places explaining what he means by his terms but it is clear that the Law came after Abraham and had a distinct character from the promise that was made.



Just to clear something up. . . . . . 

One of the favorite passages of those who follows Kline's covenant theology is Galatians 3. They argue that this passage shows that the Mosaic covenant, and specifically the law given there, has expired. This is their main passage for showing that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. The problem is that their interpretation of Galatians 3 is absolutely impossible.

Firstly (although I won't make a big deal out of this argument, even though it is fatal to their interpretation) the analogy of Scripture from Matthew 5 debunks their interpretation. Their Christ said that the law found in the Mosaic covenant would not pass away.

But, the main problem with their interpretation of Gal. 3 is that it isn't speaking of the moral law. Paul uses the term law, but he is clearly speaking of those laws which were restorative, or ceremonial in character. Firstly, this is seen when the historical occasion for the book is taken into account. Who is Paul writing against? The Judaizers, who were trying to make the people submit to the ceremonial law. Secondly, it is clearly seen to be the ceremonial law in his argument concerning the school master. The Kliniean covenant theologians interpret this schoolmaster as being Mosaic law. This is seen clearly in the following statement made previously by Dr. Clark


> It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments.


The problem is that conception makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's argument. 


> Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
> Gal. 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> Gal. 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.


 Paul here teaches that the law kept them in prison, shutting them in until something happened, that is until the sacrificial atonement of Christ. And that law was a school teacher to bring them to Christ, in order that they might truly be justified by faith. After this there is no longer a need for a tutor. 
This is basically the argument the author to the hebrews makes concerning the ceremonial law. The restorative law (ceremonial) taught justification by faith, but it could not accomplish that which it pictured. It was always picturing, always teaching, but never accomplishing. It was a schoolmaster, it lead them unto Christ, the ultimate reality of what it pictured, that they might be justified. 
Now I challenge Dr. Clark, or anyone else to show how the law is in any way a schoolmaster that will lead us to faith in Christ. IT CANNOT BE DONE. One might say that it shows us our sin, and our need for him.


> Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments.


 But this is not Paul's argument. The law truly does show us our guilt, but it does not in any way lead us to Christ to be justified by faith! You could give a million people a copy of the moral/judicial law and they could study it all of their lives, and not a one will come up with the fact that God was going to provide a sacrifice for sin. Redemption is not found or pictured in the moral law.
Dr. Clark's argument is basically: 1) the school teacher is harsh "with a stick in his hand." 2) the mosaic law is harsh. Therefore, the school teacher is the mosaic law. That is simply poor reasoning. What if I said: 1) Elephants are dangerous creatures. 2) Sharks are dangerous creatures. Therefore elephants are sharks. This is not acceptable reasoning. Dr. Clark needs to show how the judicial/moral law in any way teaches someone justification by faith. He also needs to change his view of the law as a harsh teacher with a stick in his hand. David surely did not have that view of God's perfect law when he wrote


> Psa. 19:7 The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
> Psa. 19:8 The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.
> Psa. 19:9 The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether.
> Psa. 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb.
> Psa. 19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward.



So I challenge you to open your Bibles to Galatians 3 and read it again, and ask yourself whether or not it makes more since to view the "law" being spoken of as those ceremonial laws that passed away at the atonement of Christ, or if it is a rejection of the Mosaic moral code.


----------



## crhoades

Along those lines, may I commend Chapter 7 in _Theonomy a Reformed Critique_ by Moises Silva entitled: Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity as well as Moises Silva, "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians Galatians , (pp. 217-48) in _Justification and Variegated Nomism_ edited by Carson.


----------



## fredtgreco

I'm no Klinean (actually far from it) but it appears to me that by "law" Paul means more than the ceremonies. I'm not sure how you can substitute "ceremonial sacrificial system" in the following verses of Galatians 3:



> Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them


especially since the quotation by Paul is from Deuteronomy 27, which clearly is a summation of the Mosaic law _in toto_ rather than just the ceremonies.




> Galatians 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather (a)"The one who does them shall live by them.


 (here citing Lev. 18:5, clearly a _do_ passage, not a ceremonial sacrificial system passage)



> Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"


 (the curse of the law referring to commandments, not ceremonies)

So I have read Galatians 3 again, and without being Klinean (or even agreeing with Horton on the republication aspect) I will side with Calvin, and not Mr. Wetmore:



> We must again remind the reader that Paul does not treat exclusively of ceremonies, or of the moral law, but embraces the whole economy by which the Lord governed his people under the Old Testament. It became a subject of dispute whether the form of government instituted by Moses had any influence in obtaining righteousness. Paul compares this law first to a prison, and next to a schoolmaster. Such was the nature of the law, as both comparisons plainly show, that it could not have been in force beyond a certain time.
> 
> But a question arises, what was the instruction or education of this
> schoolmaster? First, the law, by displaying the justice of God, convinced
> them that in themselves they were unrighteous; for in the commandments of
> God, as in a mirror, they might see how far they were distant from true
> righteousness. They were thus reminded that righteousness must be sought
> in some other quarter. The promises of the law served the same purpose,
> and might lead to such reflections as these: “If you cannot obtain life by
> works but by fulfilling the law, some new and different method must be
> sought. Your weakness will never allow you to ascend so high; nay, though
> you desire and strive ever so much, you will fall far short of the object.” The
> threatenings, on the other hand, pressed and entreated them to seek refuge
> from the wrath and curse of God, and gave them no rest till they were
> constrained to seek the grace of Christ.
> Such too, was the tendency of all the ceremonies; for what end did sacrifices
> and washings serve but to keep the mind continually fixed on pollution and
> condemnation? When a man’s uncleanness is placed before his eyes, when
> the unoffending animal is held forth as the image of his own death, how can
> he indulge in sleep? How can he but be roused to the earnest cry for
> deliverance? Beyond all doubt, ceremonies accomplished their object, not
> merely by alarming and humbling the conscience, but by exciting them to the
> faith of the coming Redeemer. In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual,
> every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ. (Calvin, on Galatians 3)


----------



## MW

This thought from Calvin shows that the Mosaic ritual was an administration of the covenant of grace: "In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual, every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ."


----------



## non dignus

armourbearer said:


> This thought from Calvin shows that the Mosaic ritual was an administration of the covenant of grace: "In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual, every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ."



Yes, indeed. The impress of Christ vanquishing the serpent from the temple/garden.


----------



## G.Wetmore

> fredtgreco wrote:
> I'm no Klinean (actually far from it) but it appears to me that by "law" Paul means more than the ceremonies. I'm not sure how you can substitute "ceremonial sacrificial system" in the following verses of Galatians 3:
> 
> Quote:
> Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them
> especially since the quotation by Paul is from Deuteronomy 27, which clearly is a summation of the Mosaic law in toto rather than just the ceremonies.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Galatians 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather (a)"The one who does them shall live by them.
> (here citing Lev. 18:5, clearly a do passage, not a ceremonial sacrificial system passage)
> 
> Quote:
> Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"
> (the curse of the law referring to commandments, not ceremonies)
> 
> So I have read Galatians 3 again, and without being Klinean (or even agreeing with Horton on the republication aspect) I will side with Calvin, and not Mr. Wetmore:



I guess I wasn't clear, I apologize. When I referenced Galatians 3, I was specifically referring to Gal 3:23ff and their interpretation of the schoolmaster as the judicial law. I believe that in the earlier part of Gal 3 Paul is simply referring to the Mosaic administration. I do believe that even in that earlier part of Gal 3 the Klineian interpretation is wrong, but I don't think I have the time right now to give an exegetical paper on that section. Suffice it to say that I think that Paul is talking about a misunderstanding (judiazer view) of the Mosaic law, as a covenant of works. 
Paul is arguing that the Mosaic administration was never meant to be a covenant of works. This judiazer tendency to view the Mosaic adminstration as a covenant of works and not as a covenant of grace is clearly expressed by Paul in Rom 9 when he writes


> Rom. 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
> Rom. 9:31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
> Rom. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;
> Rom. 9:33 even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.


The problem with the Judiazer mentality is that though they followed the law, they did not arrive at the true meaning of the law. Why did they not arrive at the true meaning of the law? Because they sought it not by faith, but treated is as though it were by works, therefore they stumbled and fell. They did not understand that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works, but it was meant to be lived out in faith, not by works!

Paul goes on to say


> Rom. 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved.
> Rom. 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
> Rom. 10:3 For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
> Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.
> Rom. 10:5 For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby.


In seeking to follow the law as a covenant of works, they were ignorant of God's righteousness, and they instead sought to establish it on their own, and they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end, the telos, the aim of the law unto righteousness to everyone that believes. In this context, Paul qoutes Moses saying that the man who truly seeks after the righteousness of God in the law, that is the righteousness that is by faith, shall live thereby. In other words, when the law is followed how it was meant to be given, in faith and not by works, it will be an experience of life to them and not death. The judiazers turned this around and acted as though the man who lived according to the law would merit life by it!
I believe that what Paul is doing in Galatians 3:12 is qouting that passage from the false understanding of the Judiazers, he is showing that their false understanding of the law as a system of merit unto life does not fit with God's rigtheousness that is revealed by faith. 

What he is arguing against in the first part of Gal 3 is a false understanding of the Mosaic law, that pits law against the promise. 


> Gal. 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
> Gal. 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.


Paul here is saying that the Mosaic covenant is not of works, he says if it were by works, it would be no more by promise, but it is by promise. In the false understanding of the Mosaic administration they thought it was by works not by promise. This is exactly what Paul is correcting.
Somehow the Klineians come to this passage and simply reinvent the judaistic mentality by saying it was a covenant of works, but not works unto salvation, but works unto inheritence. But this has nothing to do with Paul's argument here. 

It isn't the easiest passage to understand, and it surely is one of those passages that made Peter say that some things in the writings of Paul were hard to understand.

My whole point about the schoolmaster, is that when Paul gets to that point in his argument he turns to the ceremonial character of the mosaic administration. I understand the qoute from Calvin to an extent. A true understanding of the judicial and moral law would show the Israelites that they had no righteousness, but this does not teach them justification by faith. It would teach them that they can't justify themselves, but if all they had was the moral and judicial law, they would not have been able to come to the conclusion of any type of salvation, but simply of judgment.

That it is clear that the school master is the restorative law is seen in Paul's arguing that it led them to justification by faith. Furthermore, he then says that it is now passed away when the object of faith is revealed, which is Christ. Again, what was the historic situation? the Judiazers were trying to make them observe the jewish ceremonies. This is why Paul moves on to say:


> Gal. 4:9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?
> Gal. 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
> Gal. 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.


They were trying to return unto the schoolmaster, going back to the rudiments, puting themselves in bondage again. And then he explains, they observe days and monts and seasons and years. He is afraid of them, because they are trying to go back under the ceremonial aspects of the law. 

So again, I apologize for the confusion, I wasn't clear in my last post when I just said Gal 3 and didn't specify. I was specifically referring to the argument Dr. Clark used concerning the schoolmaster.


----------



## Catechist

*Different relation of the Law*

Herman Witsius wrote,

"That the expression to be _of the law_, and that, _to be of the works of the law_, are not in all respects the same; for, those may simply be said _to be of the law, to whom pertained the giving of the law_, Rom ix. 4. that is, *the Jewish nation*, to whom the law of God was delivered, and who, in consequence of that giving of the law, and of the covenant founded thereon, became what they are, a people peculiar to God.

But seeing works, on the business of justification, which was the dispute among the Galatians, are always set in direct opposition to faith, those who are _of the works of the law_, cannot be of justifying faith. 

If you object, that the law is in like manner opposed to faith; I answer, the law has a twofold relation: a _legal_, strictly so called, as it contains the condition of justification, by a personal and proper obedience; and an _evangelical_, as, by its types and shadows, it leads to Christ. Whoever, according to the former relation, are of the law, are not heirs, Rom iv. 14. but whoever were of the law, so as to discover in it the gracious promises of the gospel, belonged to that seed of Abraham, to which the promise was declared. 

And according to this different relation of the law, the apostle in a different sense says, that some of are the law; some who, because they want to be of the law, are not heirs; namely those, who reckon their works as a condition of righteousness with God, either for purification or satisfaction; and some again who are of the law, and yet are heirs; namely those, who suffer themselves to be led by the law, as a schoolmaster, to Christ. But works contradistinguised from faith, can have no other than an opposite relation in justification."

From the above quote taken from Witsius "The Economy", it does not sound as though he is advocating that the Jewish nation as a whole was placed under a republished covenant of works. But acknowledges those who are _of the works of the law_, as not heirs. 

"In the last place, I do not imagine that either of these can be proved from any passage of scripture: either, that those can be called the true spiritual sons of Abraham, who are _of the works of the law_: or, that those, who, in faith and a good conscience, observe the precepts of the ceremonial law, can, on that account be said to be _under the curse_. I find Rom. iv. 16. is quoted as a proof of the former; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." 

Rev. Winzer, it appears that what Witsius wrote here above is in agreement with what you have stated here below. 

"I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity."

Am I understanding your position correctly?


----------



## Archlute

Okay, for all of you gentlemen out there who are claiming that republication is a novel view, and that it cannot be found in earlier reformed writings, what will you do with these quotes from Herman Witsius' (1636-1708) _Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_?


Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 47: "Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, whether it was a covenant of works or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe that in the ministry of Moses, *there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.*"

Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 48: "Secondly, we more especially remark, that when the law was given from Mt. Sinai or Horeb, *there was a repetition of the covenant of works.*"


He then goes on to discuss how the covenant at Sinai was neither formally _the_ covenant of works with sinners on an individual basis, nor was it a covenant of grace. What does Witsius claim the Mosaic covenant to be then?


Vol. 2, book 4, sec. 54: "What was it then? It was a _national covenant_ between God and Israel (emphasis in original)..."


Grasping this concept only helps to make sense of what continued to happen between God and Israel regarding the promised land. Every time they messed up and broke the national covenant of works, things went south; when they obeyed, God rendered to them their due blessing. I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?


----------



## Archlute

The citations that are provided above pretty much trash the following two statements (sorry, gents)  



Catechist said:


> From the above quote taken from Witsius "The Economy", *it does not sound as though he is advocating that the Jewish nation as a whole was placed under a republished covenant of works*.
> 
> Rev. Winzer, it appears that what Witsius wrote here above is in agreement with what you have stated here below.
> 
> "*There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance*, or any other Klinean peculiarity."


----------



## Archlute

Also, I just found this in Hodge's ST, vol. 2, p. 375 (Horton cites this in his end notes for chapter 5 of _God of Promise_):

"Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God.

First, *it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people*...

Secondly, it contained... *a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works*..."


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> Finally, it has been argued by some (e.g., some of my friends on the Puritanboard) that the doctrine of re-publication is "unconfessional." To this I appeal to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1.


Dr Clark, I would be interested in understanding your position a bit more clearly -- would you say then that believers participating in the Mosiac administration were under the law as a covenant of works? Also, who was the head of this republished covenant of works? Still Adam? Now Moses? Somehow corporate Israel? Or with each Israelite individually?


----------



## G.Wetmore

Archlute said:


> Okay, for all of you gentlemen out there who are claiming that republication is a novel view, and that it cannot be found in earlier reformed writings, what will you do with these quotes from Herman Witsius' (1636-1708) _Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_?
> 
> 
> Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 47: "Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, whether it was a covenant of works or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe that in the ministry of Moses, *there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.*"
> 
> Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 48: "Secondly, we more especially remark, that when the law was given from Mt. Sinai or Horeb, *there was a repetition of the covenant of works.*"
> 
> 
> He then goes on to discuss how the covenant at Sinai was neither formally _the_ covenant of works with sinners on an individual basis, nor was it a covenant of grace. What does Witsius claim the Mosaic covenant to be then?
> 
> 
> Vol. 2, book 4, sec. 54: "What was it then? It was a _national covenant_ between God and Israel (emphasis in original)..."
> 
> 
> Grasping this concept only helps to make sense of what continued to happen between God and Israel regarding the promised land. Every time they messed up and broke the national covenant of works, things went south; when they obeyed, God rendered to them their due blessing. I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?



You can quote Wistius, or anyone else you want, it makes no difference to me. If they hold Kline's position they are just as wrong as he is. I challenge you to give scriptural evidence for this, don't just answer based upon your system. 
I always find it strange that in these conversations, whenever someones Scriptural interpretation is challenged, they immediately go to Church history, and simply prove that someone else held the same error. So unless you claim that Wistius is the final aribiter of theological disputes, your response is sadly lacking.


----------



## Archlute

G.Wetmore said:


> You can quote Wistius, or anyone else you want, it makes no difference to me. If they hold Kline's position they are just as wrong as he is. I challenge you to give scriptural evidence for this, don't just answer based upon your system.
> I always find it strange that in these conversations, whenever someones Scriptural interpretation is challenged, they immediately go to Church history, and simply prove that someone else held the same error. So unless you claim that Wistius is the final aribiter of theological disputes, your response is sadly lacking.




First off, don't be such a hothead. My posts were answering the question that you posed of whether or not Witsius did in fact hold this position, and second, whether or not this view merely a "Klinean peculiarity". It had nothing to do at that point with the question of exegesis, merely whether or not this was an historically acceptable position. So I gave citations from both Witsius and Charles Hodge proving that, yes, Witsius did hold that view, and that, no, Kline was not the first to come up with it, so it cannot be termed a "Klinean peculiarity".

Second, this position is not one that can be proven one way or the other by a facile use of proof texts. It is a big picture question, namely, a systematic look at the whole of the Mosaic economy, covenants in general, and the thematic doctrines that we see coming out as we look at them. If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine, just realize that by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture, but rather are understood by inference from a number of passages. If you consistently take this hermeneutic you will eventually become a baptist by conviction; notice that most baptists reject many (some baptists reject all) of the doctrines that I made mention of above. It is not so easy to get a handle on every doctrine.


----------



## Archlute

Archlute said:


> I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?




Gabriel, I should have looked at your profile and surveyed your posts earlier, and I would have found the underlying problem that folk such as yourself have with this position. 

You are a theonomist who is attending GPTS. The pastor who just about gave himself a myocardial infarction over this view when he thought I was even hinting at it is a recovering theonomist who also attended GPTS. By this I am able to explain two things: 

The first is that (and I'm not saying that this holds true for everyone who attends GPTS) the few men who I have met who are graduates of that institution have a rigid view of how the languages work, and tend to be myopic proof-texters rather than more thoughtful, big picture, theologians. Again, not all, but it is a pattern that I have observed. This would explain your hesitancy to accept a view without a Scriptural proof, and apart from systematic inference. 

The second, and in my opinion the more important factor, is that theonomists (current or recovering) hate the idea that the Mosaic economy could have been a national covenant of works, because it takes the wind out of their sails regarding the application of the Mosaic code to modern nations. If it was unique to their theocracy, then it is not necessarily valid to apply it to, say, the U.S., as one example.

I don't have a great desire to carry on this debate with papers and graduation looming large, so I'll leave this thread at that, and wish you all a great afternoon!


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> Gabriel, I should have looked at your profile and surveyed your posts earlier, and I would have found the underlying problem that folk such as yourself have with this position.
> 
> You are a theonomist who is attending GPTS. The pastor who just about gave himself a myocardial infarction over this view when he thought I was even hinting at it is a recovering theonomist who also attended GPTS. By this I know two things:
> 
> The first is that (and I'm not saying that this holds true for everyone who attends GPTS) the few men who I have met who are graduates of that institution have a rigid view of how the languages work, and tend to be myopic proof-texters rather than more thoughtful, big picture, theologians. Again, not all, but it is a pattern that I have observed. This would explain your hesitancy to accept a view without a Scriptural proof, and apart from systematic inference.
> 
> The second, and in my opinion the more important factor, is that theonomists (current or recovering) hate the idea that the Mosaic economy could have been a national covenant of works, because it takes the wind out of their sails regarding the application of the Mosaic code to modern nations. If it was unique to their theocracy, then it is not necessarily valid to apply it to, say, the U.S., as one example.
> 
> I don't have a great desire to carry on this debate with papers and graduation looming large, so I'll leave this thread at that, and wish you all a great afternoon!



Adam,

Please work on you papers primarily - it is more important.

But you should avoid making statementns like that above. As an non-GPTS student (RTS Jackson, thank you) what you have said is unfair and untrue. I could just as easily (and in my mind with greater accuracy) have said Westminster West graduates are unthinking Klineans who have an overly Lutheran view of the Law, and that would be untrue and unfair.


At the same time, Gabriel, I would invite you to ask Dr. Pipa (or Drs. Shaw or others) how to properly discuss this matter. You obviously are missing the point in several areas, as your interaction with me (a non-Klinean!) on Galatians 3. My point was that Paul's use of "law" is consistent in all of Galatians 3, and that the early portion of Galatians 3 makes it impossible to view 3:23 as being the ceremonial law alone. For evidence supporting my exegesis (which I have done, having just preached through Galatians), I provided a spot on quote from Calvin. You chose not to respond to the exegesis or citation at all.


I say this not to win an argument or be critical, but to help yopu in thinking through this. If you doubt my sincerity, as Dr. Pipa about my motives.


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Adam,
> 
> Please work on you papers primarily - it is more important.
> 
> But you should avoid making statements like that above. As an non-GPTS student (RTS Jackson, thank you) what you have said is unfair and untrue. I could just as easily (and in my mind with greater accuracy) have said Westminster West graduates are unthinking Klineans who have an overly Lutheran view of the Law, and that would be untrue and unfair.



Thanks for the admonishment, Fred, you're right on both counts. I will now apologize for that unfair cut, and get back to work.


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> Thanks for the admonishment, Fred, you're right on both counts. I will now apologize for that unfair cut, and get back to work.



You are welcome, and I will be praying for you today as you complete the important work of the end of a term.

God bless you!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I guess I don't need to "weigh-in" ... (MDiv. GPTS, 2001)

Forgive and forget, I always say...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Casey,

see:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheses.php

rsc



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Dr Clark, I would be interested in understanding your position a bit more clearly -- would you say then that believers participating in the Mosiac administration were under the law as a covenant of works? Also, who was the head of this republished covenant of works? Still Adam? Now Moses? Somehow corporate Israel? Or with each Israelite individually?


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> Rev. Winzer, it appears that what Witsius wrote here above is in agreement with what you have stated here below.



Hi Kevin. Thankyou for the excerpts from Witsius. I think it's more a case that I'm in agreement with Witsius, as he was one of the men I studied to arrive at the conclusion which I have stated here.

Archlute, note carefully what Witsius says is republished: "we observe that in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works." By this it is not meant that the law was given as a covenant of works to Israel. Witsius specifically concludes, "The covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works" (Economy, 2:184). Rather, "the carnal Israelites, not adverting to God's purpose or intention, as they ought, mistook the true meaning of that covenant, embraced it as a covenant of works, and by it sought for righteousness" (ibid., 184, 185).

As noted previously, those divines who speak of a republished covenant of works do not mean that the law was specifically given as a means of self-justification, but only that certain elements of the covenant of works were revived, and that for the purpose of showing man's condemnation in a state of nature. "Do this and live," "Cursed is the man that continueth in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them," are elements which were part and parcel of the covenant of works. Moreover, the same elements are published in the gospel: "He that believeth not is damned." See the Marrow of Modern Divinity for a clear explanation of this point.


----------



## Archlute

He also states on 2:185 that it was not a formal covenant of grace either. On p.186 he connects it to Israel as a national covenant, not individual, and states that it was neither formally one or the other, but it is clear that there was a republication of the CoW principle on a national level during this administration. As I noted, Hodge believed the same. 

It seems that one of the sticking points in this discussion is that one side keeps their focus upon the individual, and the other the national aspect of the covenant. Those who see it primarily with reference to the individual dislike the republication idea, but others see the events at Horeb to be a constituting of a covenanted nation where the focus is upon the collective people. That being said, I have no problem with a republication of the CoW, on that theocratic level, as it explains quite well what would be the future of Israel's history.


----------



## G.Wetmore

Archlute said:


> First off, don't be such a hothead. My posts were answering the question that you posed of whether or not Witsius did in fact hold this position, and second, whether or not this view merely a "Klinean peculiarity". It had nothing to do at that point with the question of exegesis, merely whether or not this was an historically acceptable position. So I gave citations from both Witsius and Charles Hodge proving that, yes, Witsius did hold that view, and that, no, Kline was not the first to come up with it, so it cannot be termed a "Klinean peculiarity".
> 
> Second, this position is not one that can be proven one way or the other by a facile use of proof texts. It is a big picture question, namely, a systematic look at the whole of the Mosaic economy, covenants in general, and the thematic doctrines that we see coming out as we look at them. If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine, just realize that by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture, but rather are understood by inference from a number of passages. If you consistently take this hermeneutic you will eventually become a baptist by conviction; notice that most baptists reject many (some baptists reject all) of the doctrines that I made mention of above. It is not so easy to get a handle on every doctrine.



Firstly, this post sounds a lot more hotheaded than anything I wrote to you.

Secondly, I never made any statement about what Wistius believed.

Thirdly, I never said give an "explicit" Biblical passage. I did ask for Biblical warrant, those are two completely different things. For some reason you call me a "myopic proof texter" because I think that what you believe needs to be backed up with Scripture. Well I am glad to be called a proof texter, because I believe that whatever I think about Scripture can't come from my own mind, but must be able to be proved from God's word. I don't think that this is simply done by quoting one verse, but it has to be shown from Scripture. I don't believe that I said anything that makes you say I am "myopic" in my argumentation. Your characterization of me as


> If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine


 is sadly unwarranted.

you then say:


> by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture


 And by the way, I do think that I can argue for those positions from Scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold to them.

I have a feeling that you really are a proof texter at heart. Unless you believe that you can hold to any doctrines you want and not defend them from Scripture, in which case I would simply say that we hold to a different religion, because I don't believe that we have the right to invent God according to our own whims, but I am confident that you don't either. So lets just stop the name calling.

All I am asking for is some Scriptural argument for you case, not just an assertion that it is a systematic doctrine, because even systematic doctrines must come from Scripture. As the WCF teaches, our doctrines must either be expilicity taught in Scripture, or be derived from Scripture by good and necessary concequences.


----------



## Archlute

Contra_Mundum said:


> I guess I don't need to "weigh-in" ... (MDiv. GPTS, 2001)
> 
> Forgive and forget, I always say...



Sorry, Bruce. I meant no ill towards you by that comment. 

Wouldn't it be great to have intercollegiate sports competitions between the various Reformed seminaries over the breaks, in order to "work out our differences"?  

(or how about the Reformed vs. Fuller, et al???  )


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> He also states on 2:185 that it was not a formal covenant of grace either. On p.186 he connects it to Israel as a national covenant, not individual, and states that it was neither formally one or the other, but it is clear that there was a republication of the CoW principle on a national level during this administration. As I noted, Hodge believed the same.



Witsius was amongst a minority who believed it was a "mixed" covenant. I haven't studied Cocceius, but I suspect this is one of the areas where Witsius was mediating for the Cocceian school. Either way, there is no republication of the covenant of works in Witsius, only of certain elements of the covenant of works. Hodge followed Turretin in stating that it was essentially a covenant of grace. This is the standard reformed position.


----------



## Archlute

G.Wetmore said:


> Firstly, this post sounds a lot more hotheaded than anything I wrote to you.
> 
> Secondly, I never made any statement about what Wistius believed.
> 
> Thirdly, I never said give an "explicit" Biblical passage. I did ask for Biblical warrant, those are two completely different things. For some reason you call me a "myopic proof texter" because I think that what you believe needs to be backed up with Scripture. Well I am glad to be called a proof texter, because I believe that whatever I think about Scripture can't come from my own mind, but must be able to be proved from God's word. I don't think that this is simply done by quoting one verse, but it has to be shown from Scripture. I don't believe that I said anything that makes you say I am "myopic" in my argumentation. Your characterization of me as is sadly unwarranted.
> 
> you then say:
> And by the way, I do think that I can argue for those positions from Scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold to them.
> 
> I have a feeling that you really are a proof texter at heart. Unless you believe that you can hold to any doctrines you want and not defend them from Scripture, in which case I would simply say that we hold to a different religion, because I don't believe that we have the right to invent God according to our own whims, but I am confident that you don't either. So lets just stop the name calling.
> 
> All I am asking for is some Scriptural argument for you case, not just an assertion that it is a systematic doctrine, because even systematic doctrines must come from Scripture. As the WCF teaches, our doctrines must either be expilicity taught in Scripture, or be derived from Scripture by good and necessary concequences.





Whatever, Gabe. You're not interacting with the material from Witsius and Hodge that I posted, nor my analysis of your position, and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you. Believe what you'd like, I've got more important things to do right now. Adios.


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> Witsius was amongst a minority who believed it was a "mixed" covenant. I haven't studied Cocceius, but I suspect this is one of the areas where Witsius was mediating for the Cocceian school. Either way, there is no republication of the covenant of works in Witsius, only of certain elements of the covenant of works. Hodge followed Turretin in stating that it was essentially a covenant of grace. This is the standard reformed position.



Well, Rev. Winzer, you're asserting one thing, but when I look at the statements from those men that I highlighted above it seems to me that they held differently. That Witsius was holding a mediating position for Cocceius is just speculation. 

I would really like to see someone interact with this on the national level, as I made mention of above, and how that would pose a problem to the CoG. It seems to me that having the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the CoW on a national level with Israel does not preclude it from being administered within the CoG.


----------



## MW

Archlute, you have set out to defend Kline's notion on the basis that it has reformed precursors. It has been shown clearly that the one person you quote -- Herman Witsius -- did not believe it was a national covenant of works. You have no reformed precursors for Kline's opinion. That is the fact of the matter.


----------



## G.Wetmore

Mr. Myer,

You say:



> Whatever, Gabe. You're not interacting with the material from Witsius and Hodge that I posted, nor my analysis of your position, and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you.



I actually did think I was interacting with your "analysis" of my position. That is, I was just pointing out that you unjustly misrepresented my position. You attributed things to me which I never said, and do not believe. And you threw in a little name calling, just for fun. 

And all because I asked for Biblical warrant for your position. 

I don't feel as though that is a very loving or fair response to have with a fellow Christian who disagrees with you.


----------



## Catechist

Book IV, Chap IV, XLIX Witsius writes, "We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek righteousness and salvation."

Though Witsius asserts repetition in some respects, it was not a repeating of the covenant of works which he clearly distinguishes. 

For example, Book iv, Chap iv, LI Witsius writes, "the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because they cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes,. 2ndly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3rdly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance."

The national covenant made with Israel was not the covenant of works. But as Witsius writes subsequently in LIV, "It was a national covenant between God and Israel..." I don't think Witsius would contradict what he just wrote, nor does he diminish his principle caveats when he states that the national covenant made with Israel is not the covenant of works; though through synecdoche, repetition is observed, in part, but not in kind or administration. The covenant of works before the fall was peculiar to Adam as he represented his posterity. Never again will the covenant of works be repeated in such kind or administration. When the attempted republication is made in kind or administration, we abuse the legitimate function of substitution. 

What good can be done or practical application attained, asserting a republished covenant of works based upon the Adamic covenant of works. The covenant at Sinai is clearly a consequent, "both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither one or the other."

Perfect obedience is replaced by sincere obedience, which in turn, is grace, but not one and the same.

Overstating principles such that a repetition of the covenant of works equates to a repeating of the covenant of works, in the same sense, is an abuse of terms. It is against the nature of the covenant of works. See also Book 1, Chap. ix, XX.

For those who speak of the republished covenant of works, do you do so under the umbrella of repetition or of repeating? Too much of the language in the above posts, appears to mix the two to too great a degree, which is unfortunate.
__________________
Kevin Barrow
Lynden, WA
Worshipping @
URC Lynden WA


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

You make a good point. Witsius was making the same point as WCF 19 (which opens with a full restatement of the covenant of works! and closes with a denial that any sinner can obey this law unto justification after the fall). 

Thus, Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works in one sense and not in another. As a way of justification, for sinners, the law is abrogated. Nevertheless, the substance of the creational law (WCF 19) was re-stated with the first use in view, to drive the Israelites to Christ. 

In that sense, there is little doubt that the Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works. The antecedent of "this law" in WCF 19.2 is clearly the covenant of works in 19.1.

The question remains whether there was any sense in which the 
covenant of works was republished to Israel as a national covenanted people relative to the land. 

The principle of republication is widely attested in the earlier Reformed literature. In addition to the rough citations/quotations I've provided, I've also offered references to other primary texts. It is also found in Cartwright and Rollock (if I haven't cited them already).

The question is, what do we do with this thread in earlier Reformed theology? Do we conclude that it was mistaken or do we modify it and use it to try to address an unfinished element of Reformed theology?

I prefer the latter move.

We need to recognize that the republication occurred post lapsum and to those to whom the covenant of grace had been promulgated. So, no advocate of republication of whom I'm aware, thinks that the terms of the covenant of works in republication were _identical_ to those ante lapsum. 

I think it's helpful to consider republication relative to the pedagogical, civil, and moral uses of the law. The same law performs multiple functions simultaneously in the life of national Israel. 

In favor of some idea of republication is the fact that Israel was ultimately expelled from Jerusalem and lost his status as the national covenanted people on the basis of his disobedience. This is an expression of the legal principle.


----------



## A5pointer

Anybody here read about NCT? it seems to answer all the questions coming up in this post. http://ids.org/ids/index.php.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

NCT is a significant departure from confessional Reformed theology. Strictly speaking, it isn't "covenant theology" at all, since it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible.

On NCT principles, there is literally nothing in principle to be gained from the Old Testament. It is useful for one thing: historical data. It has as much relevance to a "New Covenant" believer as the Apocrypha. If all a "New Covenant" believer has is the New Testament, in fact if all he has is Acts and the letters, he has all the Bible he really needs. The gospels are significant for the facts of Jesus life and ministry, but the New Covenant only comes into effect once Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper, and is followed by the complex of events that was his death, burial, and resurrection (the necessary bloodletting for the creation of this covenant, and the confirmation of its acceptance by God by his raising Christ from the dead).

NCT's "theology of (biblical) law" is thoroughly erroneous. (BTW, just because someone manages _consistency _doesn't validate his position; a man may be _consistently_ wrong). NCT's view of the relations between the historic covenant arrangements of redemptive history are quite dispensational. There is no appreciation for the unity of the Covenant of Grace, or the fact that we belong to one and the same covenant as Abraham.

I think that NCT is basically a reaction against Reformed Baptist confessionalism. R-Bs were those who basically accepted the Covenant Theology of the Reformation, so far as it taught a bi-covenant scheme (Covenant of Works/ Covenant of Grace), of course without the unity of the sign. Over time, Baptists in the US generally moved away from the covenant theology of the Reformation entirely (and in much of Baptistry, Reformed soteriology as well).

As time has progressed, there has been a serious effort on the part of Founders, etc., to regain some lost ground, and that move necessitates a return to a view of the unity of the Covenant of Grace. However, not everyone who has bought into Reformed soteriology (TULIP) has also been willing to become "whole Bible" Christians again. Hence, the rationale behind NCT.

I would call NCT the latest (radical) attempt to construct a version of the church that uses *only* the New Testament (New Covenant document) as the basis for understanding it. They wish to retain what they think previous Baptist theology has gotten right, i.e baptism for professors, TULIP, certain elements of dispensationalism. In other words,, they want to "purify" Baptist theology.

If you are Presbyterian or ContinentalReformed, NCT will not be helpful at all in answering our theological questions. If you are a Confessional Baptist, I don't think you will want to take this road away from your historic connections to the Reformation.


----------



## G.Wetmore

R. Scott Clark said:


> In favor of some idea of republication is the fact that Israel was ultimately expelled from Jerusalem and lost his status as the national covenanted people on the basis of his disobedience. This is an expression of the legal principle.




Dr. Clark, I disagree with you. Israel did not lose his status as the covenant people because he failed to obey a covenant of works! The Jewish people were judged, and were cut out of the covenant because of unbelief! It was because they didn't have faith. Their sinful rebellion was simply indicative of their heart.

Notice again what Paul says of this in Romans. In speaking concerning Israel's being cut out of the covenant he says this:


> What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
> Rom. 9:31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
> Rom. 9:32 *Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works.* They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;
> Rom. 9:33 even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.
> Rom. 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved.
> Rom. 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
> Rom. 10:3 *For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
> Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth*.



The Jewish people were judged because they sought to establish their own righteousness. They tried to follow God's law as if it were by works, and not by faith. They tried to use God's law to establish their own righteousness, and refused to submit themselves to God's righteousness. In short, they were judged for unbelief.


----------



## G.Wetmore

R. Scott Clark said:


> the substance of the creational law (WCF 19) was re-stated with the first use in view, to drive the Israelites to Christ.
> 
> In that sense, there is little doubt that the Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works.



Dr. Clark,

With all due respect, I think you might want to repeal this argument. If that reasoning is followed, the new covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. The new covenant surely teaches the moral law, and drives us to Christ. According to your argument, that would therefore mean: "In that sense, there is little doubt that the _New Covenant_ was a republication of the covenant of works.

Are you really sure you want to use this argument?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Gabriel,

I don't accept the major premise of your criticism.

When Paul (2 Cor 3) and Hebrews (7-10) contrast the the Old and New Covenants they are contrasting that epoch that began with Moses with that which was inaugurated by Christ.

As I understand redemptive history, the distinctive aspect of the Old/Mosaic Covenant was the legal/typological/temporary/national element that was (Gal 3) superimposed upon the Abrahamic. 

It was that legal/temporary/typological/national element that was repealed in the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a re-articulation of the Abrahamic (and first Noahic) covenants without the typological elements inherent to them.

We cannot say that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was legal relative to justification -- that would be dispensatiionalism!-- but it was clearly legal in some respects. WCF 19 recognizes all of the aspects that I've listed here. They are all abrogated.

What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.

Thus we don't pit Israel's relation to the Abrahamic against his relation to the Mosaic. It was the latter that was abrogated, however. Thus the distinctly Mosaic aspects were temporary in a way that the Abrahamic were not.

rsc


----------



## A5pointer

R. Scott Clark said:


> Gabriel,
> 
> I don't accept the major premise of your criticism.
> 
> When Paul (2 Cor 3) and Hebrews (7-10) contrast the the Old and New Covenants they are contrasting that epoch that began with Moses with that which was inaugurated by Christ.
> 
> As I understand redemptive history, the distinctive aspect of the Old/Mosaic Covenant was the legal/typological/temporary/national element that was (Gal 3) superimposed upon the Abrahamic.
> 
> It was that legal/temporary/typological/national element that was repealed in the New Covenant.
> 
> The New Covenant is a re-articulation of the Abrahamic (and first Noahic) covenants without the typological elements inherent to them.
> 
> We cannot say that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was legal relative to justification -- that would be dispensatiionalism!-- but it was clearly legal in some respects. WCF 19 recognizes all of the aspects that I've listed here. They are all abrogated.
> 
> What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.
> 
> Thus we don't pit Israel's relation to the Abrahamic against his relation to the Mosaic. It was the latter that was abrogated, however. Thus the distinctly Mosaic aspects were temporary in a way that the Abrahamic were not.
> 
> rsc



 This is how I see it, NCT was just bashed here as being dispensational which is not true at all. Dr. Clark has stated in general the framework of NCT as I see it. I see the writer of Hebrews plainly showing appropriate discontinuity between the 2 covenants. I would like to have a covenentalist explain away the clear language in Hebrews.


----------



## Catechist

Hi Prof. Clark,

"The principle of republication is widely attested in the earlier Reformed literature. In addition to the rough citations/quotations I've provided, I've also offered references to other primary texts. It is also found in Cartwright and Rollock (if I haven't cited them already).

The question is, what do we do with this thread in earlier Reformed theology? Do we conclude that it was mistaken or do we modify it and use it to try to address an unfinished element of Reformed theology?"

Prof. Clark, I would like to know how you understand the earlier Reformed literature in light of their practical application of national covenanting. I think their practice lends a great deal to the interpretation of their principles.

For Example, the National Covenant of Scotland comes in view as well as the Solemn League and Covenant. Robert Rollock being party to the first and the Westminster Divines also, from Scotland, who were instrumental in WCF ch.19.

These covenants were not a republication of the covenant of works but were National Covenants premised upon the covenant of grace, yet not formally the covenant of grace, for the participating nations. Do you believe these covenants were lawful national covenants?

Samuel Rutherford, writes, "Hence, the clear difference betwixt the external visible and national covenanting of the people of old, when they were brought out of the Land of Egypt; And the internal and personal (though it may be visible also) covenanting with God. This under the new testament is a new covenant, and all the old shadows are abolished: the former is old."

"Because he chose (with a covenant choice) the Jews and their seed, Deut. 4:37. Deut 10:15. Gen 17.7 then he must be the God of their seed. But he choseth with a covenant choice, and calling the nations, Isa 2:2,3. All the kindreds of the earth under the new testament, Psalm 22:27. All Egypt and Assyria under the New Testament. Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hand, Isa. 19:29. All the kingdoms of the world are the Lords, and his sons, and he reigns in them, by his word and gospel, as the seventh soundeth, Rev. 11:15. all the Gentiles are his, Isa 60: 1,2,3,4. Mal 1:11, All the ends of the earth, and heathen, Psal 2: 8,9. Psal 72:7,8,9,10."

Would you conclude that the WCF republishes the covenant of works in new testament times. I do not believe it is so, yet I do believe that the national covenanting which did exist, and will exist in the future, is basd upon promises of scripture as quoted above. 

The application being, they extended the idea of national covenanting on the basis of the promise onto the Gentiles nations which stems from the original covenant made with Israel, not from the covenant of works, per se, which is abolished.

I like what you stated, when you spoke of an unfinished element of reformed theology, which is clearly in view, as far I understand the original intent of these earlier reformed writers, which comes to fruition under the New Testament, complete with the promises attached to the nations.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

R. Scott Clark said:


> What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.



Dr Clark,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant was gracious in nature, while the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was legal in nature? Can you elaborate on that? What do you think of the typological element (earthly kingdom) in the Davidic covenant?

To me, it seems the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was an extension/fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant, I don't see a fundamental difference between the nature of the land promise in the two...

I don't think you are a NCT proponent, but it seems the "republication of CoW in typological sense" language has led to many misunderstanding, leading even to charges of dispensationalism. What do you think are the benefits of this view over the other view? Sorry for my imprecise language...  

Blessings,


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A5pointer said:


> NCT was just bashed here as being dispensational which is not true at all. Dr. Clark has stated in general the framework of NCT as I see it. I see the writer of Hebrews plainly showing appropriate discontinuity between the 2 covenants. I would like to have a covenentalist explain away the clear language in Hebrews.



Please allow a response.
1) I did not say NCT _*is*_ "dispensational", which is a term open to a range of definition; to quote myself "it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible;" and "wish to retain ...certain elements of dispensationalism." Honestly, I don't know how anyone can go to the site recommended above by *A5pointer*, and if one accepts the self-description offered, not affirm the basic truthfulness of my comments.

If I say that confessional Baptist theology has a "covenantalist approach to interpreting the Bible," I should not be construed as asserting that he is thereby a "covenant theologian" in everything, including its paedo-baptist hallmarks. There's a reason why they call their view "Baptist covenant-theology." AND there's a reason why "NEW covenant-theology" is called what it is.

Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law. 

Who are the principal critics of NCT? Presbyterians? No, confessional Baptists. Why? Because they recognize this is a _mediating _view between dispensationalism and confessional Baptist theology. If the confessionalists are correct, then the NCT half-way-house is NOT the solution to dispensationalism, and it can only detract from a throughgoing reformation of the Baptist arena.

So, say what you will, stating facts isn't bashing, unless you are uncomfortable with those facts.

2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he _means_ is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.

3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.


----------



## A5pointer

Contra_Mundum said:


> Please allow a response.
> 1) I did not say NCT _*is*_ "dispensational", which is a term open to a range of definition; to quote myself "it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible;" and "wish to retain ...certain elements of dispensationalism." Honestly, I don't know how anyone can go to the site recommended above by *A5pointer*, and if one accepts the self-description offered, not affirm the basic truthfulness of my comments.
> 
> If I say that confessional Baptist theology has a "covenantalist approach to interpreting the Bible," I should not be construed as asserting that he is thereby a "covenant theologian" in everything, including its paedo-baptist hallmarks. There's a reason why they call their view "Baptist covenant-theology." AND there's a reason why "NEW covenant-theology" is called what it is.
> 
> *Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law.*
> 
> Who are the principal critics of NCT? Presbyterians? No, confessional Baptists. Why? Because they recognize this is a _mediating _view between dispensationalism and confessional Baptist theology. If the confessionalists are correct, then the NCT half-way-house is NOT the solution to dispensationalism, and it can only detract from a throughgoing reformation of the Baptist arena.
> 
> So, say what you will, stating facts isn't bashing, unless you are uncomfortable with those facts.
> 
> *2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he means is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.*
> 
> *3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.*





*Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law.*

Good summary

*2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he means is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.*
I will wait to hear from him, I am curious as to his answer

*3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.*

Sorry, I assumed you would know right where to look, bold for empasis, what I meant was you have some clear, straightforward language to exegete around to maintain the one covenant view.

A New Covenant
7For (P)if that *first* covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a *second*. 
8For finding fault with them, He says,
"(Q)BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT (R)A *NEW COVENANT*
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; 
9(S)*NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS*
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 
10"(T)FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM (U)ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 
11"(V)AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR (W)ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 
12"(X)FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
(Y)AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 

13When He said, "(Z)*A new covenant*," He has made the first *obsolete* (AA)But whatever is becoming *obsolete* and growing old is *ready to disappear*.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hello Bruce (from one Bruce to another),

Thanks for adding a passage with which to work.

The great distinction between the first/second-new, old-obsolete/new, covenant is the primary character of each: the old, or Siniatic, covenant was massively extrinsic, heavily typological, and prospective; whereas the new, or Christ-covenant is primarily intrinsic, fulfillment oriented, and eschatological.

There is a core to the old covenant--something that it has in common with the entire covenant-redemptive scheme begun in the Garden after the fall--which grows and develops right through to the new covenant: promise & fulfilment. Specifically, the promise to save his people from their sins. This promise isn't simply presented, then terminated at the end of each "covenant-era" and repristinated for a new era (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.). _it is the same promise._

So, clearly there is something NOT *new* about the new covenant. No one is saved in any other way than ever they were previously. Nor would it be proper to say that God himself changes, or ever changed. And since he does not change, neither do his moral requirements. E.g. murder was wrong in the Garden, it was wrong after the Garden in Cain's day, it was wrong before Sinai, it was wrong after Sinai, it's wrong today, it will be wrong tomorrow, and it will be wrong to all eternity. The 6th Commandment is eternally valid.

So, it is proper to say that in terms of ethical requirements of God's people, the new covenant changes nothing. God's holiness is still the standard of perfection. And since even in Moses' day, the Law was not for the purpose of justification (Rom. 10:4ff), we also do not have a change there--as if it once was for justification, but isn't any more.

The sober fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people under the old covenant _were not members of the elect according to grace_ (Rom. 9:27-29). Thus most of them were only in covenant with God in an outward, accidental sense, and not inwardly, substantively, by faith. The massive externals of the covenant both revealed truth to the faithful remnant, and blinded (or veiled, 2 Cor. 3:14) the minds of the faithless majority.

God declares to Jeremiah, even as the pitiful reality of human inability is put on display in the Exile, that a day is coming when there is going to be a difference--a big difference--in the effectiveness of God's covenant dealings. Why? Because he intends to remove the _fault_ present in that _majority_ ("them" Heb. 8:8) with whom he enters into covenant, he will be pouring out his Spirit in great abundance for *much* regeneration.

God has *more elect* in this age than in the previous age.

God has no more need of a national covenant (Rom. 9:4-5; 10:4), or massive, blinding/revealing rituals.

The Christ of the OT is no different from the Christ of the NT. The Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament has no _essential_ difference to the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. We have more of it, greater revelation and realization of it.


Anyway, that's the discontinuity--the stripping away of the massive externals, the transformation of certain aspects, the new retrospective on the once-for-all sacrifice, the pouring out of the Spirit. But there are things about God and about his covenant-redemptive plan that do not--that cannot--change.


----------



## A5pointer

Contra_Mundum said:


> Hello Bruce (from one Bruce to another),
> 
> Thanks for adding a passage with which to work.
> 
> The great distinction between the first/second-new, old-obsolete/new, covenant is the primary character of each: the old, or Siniatic, covenant was massively extrinsic, heavily typological, and prospective; whereas the new, or Christ-covenant is primarily intrinsic, fulfillment oriented, and eschatological.
> 
> There is a core to the old covenant--something that it has in common with the entire covenant-redemptive scheme begun in the Garden after the fall--which grows and develops right through to the new covenant: promise & fulfilment. Specifically, the promise to save his people from their sins. This promise isn't simply presented, then terminated at the end of each "covenant-era" and repristinated for a new era (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.). _it is the same promise._
> 
> So, clearly there is something NOT *new* about the new covenant. No one is saved in any other way than ever they were previously. Nor would it be proper to say that God himself changes, or ever changed. And since he does not change, neither do his moral requirements. E.g. murder was wrong in the Garden, it was wrong after the Garden in Cain's day, it was wrong before Sinai, it was wrong after Sinai, it's wrong today, it will be wrong tomorrow, and it will be wrong to all eternity. The 6th Commandment is eternally valid.
> 
> So, it is proper to say that in terms of ethical requirements of God's people, the new covenant changes nothing. God's holiness is still the standard of perfection. And since even in Moses' day, the Law was not for the purpose of justification (Rom. 10:4ff), we also do not have a change there--as if it once was for justification, but isn't any more.
> 
> The sober fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people under the old covenant _were not members of the elect according to grace_ (Rom. 9:27-29). Thus most of them were only in covenant with God in an outward, accidental sense, and not inwardly, substantively, by faith. The massive externals of the covenant both revealed truth to the faithful remnant, and blinded (or veiled, 2 Cor. 3:14) the minds of the faithless majority.
> 
> God declares to Jeremiah, even as the pitiful reality of human inability is put on display in the Exile, that a day is coming when there is going to be a difference--a big difference--in the effectiveness of God's covenant dealings. Why? Because he intends to remove the _fault_ present in that _majority_ ("them" Heb. 8:8) with whom he enters into covenant, he will be pouring out his Spirit in great abundance for *much* regeneration.
> 
> God has *more elect* in this age than in the previous age.
> 
> God has no more need of a national covenant (Rom. 9:4-5; 10:4), or massive, blinding/revealing rituals.
> 
> The Christ of the OT is no different from the Christ of the NT. The Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament has no _essential_ difference to the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. We have more of it, greater revelation and realization of it.
> 
> 
> Anyway, that's the discontinuity--the stripping away of the massive externals, the transformation of certain aspects, the new retrospective on the once-for-all sacrifice, the pouring out of the Spirit. But there are things about God and about his covenant-redemptive plan that do not--that cannot--change.



Thank you for the thought ful reply. I will just suggest some conclusions I see in the texts and biblical theology, nothing fancy from me, I am a simple in my thinking.

1. The Mosaic Covenant had as its scope as to benefits/curses (1) God's special real presence with Israel in the land thus the comments to Moses to tell the people to go on without Him after their first breach (2) Blessings and Curses associated with that presence or lack of it (3) the blessings and curses were physical, temporal if you will and had nothing to do with Salvation Spiritually as we may call it. (4) This Mosaic covenant never had anything to do with the true saving covenant promised to Abraham which runs parallel to the Mosaic and certainly includes the remnant as I am sure we agree. (5) It is not denied by my understanding that the Mosaic although very distinct ontologically from the new is a well matched type/anti-type of the new. The Old is only physical and temporal in nature while the new is spiritual and eternal. (6) The covenant was kept or broken corporately by the nation and was not binding on individuals as to their eternal state spiritually. 


As I read your post we are not eons apart in observations. I do though see the covenants(Mosaic and New) as being two totally different covenants with different objectives. I see the new in the promise to Abraham not Moses. Respectfully I must say that your reply on Hebrews does not deal with the language denoting 2 covenants. This Idea of the " the New is really the old just administered differently" does not do justice to the writer of Hebrews. Thank you again for indulging me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I wrote in another thread, what I'm about to repeat here:
that there are two basic "approaches" to take to the Bible, or "stances". And our exchange here is more evidence of that difference. One approach starts in Genesis, and reads "through". (I am not necesarity speaking "literally", but the "manner" of approach.) Such is my approach. The other starts in the New Testament, and begins with certain assumptions presumed from it, and proceeds to read the OT in light of those. Such is the baptist approach, generally.

For example: The idea that the NC is spiritual/eternal, the OC is physical/temporal. My understanding is that this notion would have been *utterly incomprehensible* to any true believer, under any covenant administration in the Old Testament. An OT Israelite, someone who shared the faith of Abraham, living during (for instance) King Uzziah's term, would have rejected this concept upon his first hearing it (per Heb. 11:13-16). The covenant he belonged to as an *Israelite* would have taught him something completely different.

But if one starts with the idea (perhaps drawn from this text or that in the NT) that the NC is "spiritual" and that makes it _different_ from the OT, then the OC *must* be physical. Take the Hebrews 8 text. It says that in the NC God will write his law on their hearts, and that no one will teach his neighbor "Know the Lord!" for they all will know him. So, perhaps at first glance one thinks "this is what MAKES the NC new." Is it? If you were saved in the OC, it had to be by regeneration, by the renewal of the law in the heart. Moreover, we live in the NC age today. Do we need the exhortation of the Word, "Know the Lord!"? Most assuredly. So on both these counts, the NC cannot be distinguished by a superficial reliance on these "markers".

Furthermore, since the new covenant is the same in substance with Abraham's covenant, how is it new with respect to the Siniatic when in substance it predates it? Wouldn't that make it an "older" covenant? After all, that is essentially what Paul says, Gal. 3:17. Abraham's covenant was "new" to the previous. Moses' was "new" to Abraham's. David's was "new" to Moses'. Every time God renews and refreshes his covenant it's *new*.

So what makes the new covenant new? We're back to the same question I was providing an answer for above. Hebrews 8:8 tells us what the problem was: "Finding fault with *them*..." THEY were non-regenerate, non-elect persons. Not all of them, but most of them. God could and did set up a covenant with them, a covenant which spiritual significance was hidden to most of them, because God did not give them new eyes to see, nor a heart to believe.

What is new about the new covenant? Simple. The majority/minority are flipped. The remnant is now the main body. I don't have search high and low under every pew in the church to find one, just one true brother in Christ.

And the Spirit of God is not being offered in an eydropper, but poured out like a waterfall. Its a copious rain. Note Ezek 36:26,27; 37:14,26,27; and of course Joel 2:28--These are parallel texts to the Jeremiah 31 passage cited in Hebrews.

And Christ brings in fulfillment. In a sense that is the "newest" factor of all, the fact that we look backward as well as forward. The fact that in him all things are NEW (Rev. 21:5). Actually, I think that the writer to the Hebrews has a much bigger context in mind than the keynote text he selects. Alone, it doesn't answer all the questions it raises, and it was never meant to. To fully answer the questions, the rest of Scripture (in particular the Scripture he possessed, the OT) must be brought to bear upon it, as I believe he intended. Only that kind of thinking will "do justice" to the writer of Hebrews, in my opinion.

Thank you. Blessings.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

I try to give a sketchy account of this on my site, in the theses on covenant theology. I don't want to repeat those here.



> Prof. Clark, I would like to know how you understand the earlier Reformed literature in light of their practical application of national covenanting. I think their practice lends a great deal to the interpretation of their principles.
> 
> For Example, the National Covenant of Scotland comes in view as well as the Solemn League and Covenant. Robert Rollock being party to the first and the Westminster Divines also, from Scotland, who were instrumental in WCF ch.19.



There's no question that our forefathers were theocratic and that the Scots held to a national covenant. As I've said many times here and elsewhere (e.g., on the De Regno Christ blog and on the HB) I think that any attempt to establish an extra-canonical national covenant is a mistake. 

I don't know that WCF 19 logically requires a national covenant. 

I agree that the the Scottish National Covenants were not a republication. They understood that they were not national Israel.

Whatever criticisms I have of American Presbyterianism on worship and subscription, I agree with that tradition re the national covenant.



> Would you conclude that the WCF republishes the covenant of works in new testament times. I do not believe it is so, yet I do believe that the national covenanting which did exist, and will exist in the future, is basd upon promises of scripture as quoted above.



No. That's the point of ch. 19. Republication was part and parcel of the temporary, typological, national Israelite covenant.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Polo,

No, I have not a shred of support for the so-called New Covenant Theology. I've made that clear here many times on this board.

It seems to me to exist principally to release Christians from obligation to the 4th commandment, a position I heartily reject. 

You can hear a sketch of my approach to the Sabbath in the January WSC Faculty Conference lectures. They're available from the WSC bookstore 

NCT may not actually be antinomian and dispensational but it is certainly on the same trajectory.

As for the Mosaic Covenant as a typological covenant of works being difficult, I agree that it is, but there is no approach to this question that is no problem free.

That's why I tried to make it clear that there are two parallel covenants operating in history simultaneously and that Israelites participated in BOTH at the same time. As I read Witsius vol 2 (not vol 1 as I said earlier) he makes the same point.

Some folk accuse anyone who identifies any strong discontinuity between Moses and Christ of being dispensational. This, of course, is nonsense. 

In that case the writer to the Hebrews and Paul are dispensationalist for calling the Mosaic/Old Covenant inferior and fading etc.

Anyone who affirms the _*substantial unity*_ of the covenant of grace from Gen 3:15 forward as I have done for years is not a dispensationalist. 

rsc




aleksanderpolo said:


> Dr Clark,
> 
> If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant was gracious in nature, while the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was legal in nature? Can you elaborate on that? What do you think of the typological element (earthly kingdom) in the Davidic covenant?
> 
> To me, it seems the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was an extension/fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant, I don't see a fundamental difference between the nature of the land promise in the two...
> 
> I don't think you are a NCT proponent, but it seems the "republication of CoW in typological sense" language has led to many misunderstanding, leading even to charges of dispensationalism. What do you think are the benefits of this view over the other view? Sorry for my imprecise language...
> 
> Blessings,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good summary Rev. Buchanan.

Bruce (Breunig) - this is a Confessional board. There's good reason for that. I used to wonder why folks were stodgy about that - thinking that "...why I believe the Scriptures but they trust in their Confession...."

I now view it as: "I confess the Scriptures along with the Church...."

That is, while I should understand the Scriptures and study them - my study is not done on a desert island but in the context of the Church who has been gifted with Pastors and Teachers whose job it is to teach and bring us all to the unity of the faith (i.e. a common Confession).

NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural. Those who trust their own interpretations of the Word above the centuries-old testimony of the Church will never understand that the two statements are complementary.

I'm saying this to be clear: we do not promote un-Confessional theology here. Not only is NCT un-Confessional but the men that teach it ought to repent and learn that it's not "me and the Bible" but the "Church confessing the authority of the Bible".


----------



## Catechist

Dear Prof. Clark,

I appreciate your patience with me. 

I think the point I am making, is that Israel was not included under the curse in the same way which was peculiar in the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance. 

Samuel Rutherford, said it this way, in his book, The Covenant of Life Opened, "But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works. The law as the Law or as a Covenant of Works is made with perfect men who need no mercy; But this covenant is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c. It is made with stiff-necked Israel Deut. 29 Deut 30.c. 31. c. 32. and that is called a covenant from the end and object, as motions are denominate from their end: for the end of the Lords pressing the law upon them was to bring them under a blessed necessity to seek salvation in their true city of Refuge Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of spiritual bondage of sin."


----------



## A5pointer

SemperFideles said:


> Good summary Rev. Buchanan.
> 
> Bruce (Breunig) - this is a Confessional board. There's good reason for that. I used to wonder why folks were stodgy about that - thinking that "...why I believe the Scriptures but they trust in their Confession...."
> 
> I now view it as: "I confess the Scriptures along with the Church...."
> 
> That is, while I should understand the Scriptures and study them - my study is not done on a desert island but in the context of the Church who has been gifted with Pastors and Teachers whose job it is to teach and bring us all to the unity of the faith (i.e. a common Confession).
> 
> *NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural.* Those who trust their own interpretations of the Word above the centuries-old testimony of the Church will never understand that the two statements are complementary.
> 
> I'm saying this to be clear: we do not promote un-Confessional theology here. Not only is NCT un-Confessional but the men that teach it ought to repent and learn that it's not "me and the Bible" but the "Church confessing the authority of the Bible".




Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say *"NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural."* Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking. 

Respectfully, Bruce


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

It depends upon which use of the covenant of works is in view. It was widely held that the covenant of works was abrogated as an actual way of justification. 

When the older theologians spoke of republication I understand them to have been saying that the covenant of works was republished in the pedagogical use of the law to teach Israel the greatness of his sin and misery and drive him to faith in Christ. Thus, by "republication," they were saying the same thing Rutherford is saying in substance. Given the sense in which Rutherford used "covenant of works" (as in WCF ch 7 and ch 19)

I think we agree that the fall creates a major in change in the way Israel could relate to the law. 

Clearly other writers in the same period did speak of republication of the covenant of works. Indeed, it's republication was a major proof of the initial covenant of works. It' always, however, _mutatis mutandis_ - with the changes having been changed. 

I'm proposing that, because of her one-off, absolutely unique, typological, temporary, national covenant status, Israel had an additional, typological relation to the law relative to the land. As I tell our congregation, national Israel was a sermon illustration. Israel's relation to the land was a great drama and the _formal_, _legal_ basis for his forfeiture of the national covenant was disobedience grounded in unbelief.

Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It's a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works. 

I think all civil entities are in an analogous covenant of works. I may be gracious to the city and not prosecute them for their every failure, and a cop may let me drive 40 in a 35, but we _could_ and do sometimes hold each other accountable on a works basis. If the city's failures become chronic, I take them to court. If I don't mow my yard, the city fines me and I have to pay up or go to jail. Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more and I go off to jail or they have to begin performing their duties. 

In strict justice, God might have executed the sanctions of the covenant of works immediately against Israel but, for the purposes of the giant, historical, temporary, sermon illustration, he was gracious. Nevertheless, the type of covenant under which Israel lived as national entity was formally legal, it was a suzerain-vassal treaty. Those same families also lived under a royal grant covenant that was wholly gracious relative to salvation and justification. 

This is a good way to account for all of the conditional legal language found throughout the Pentateuch and for the conditional language inherent in the 10 words themselves: "that your days may be long in the land..." 

The national, legal covenant was a ritual. Jesus ritually re-enacted at least aspects of Israel's history. Unlike Israel, Yahweh's adopted son, the true Son Jesus did meet the qualifications to be under a covenant of works. Israel was 40 years in the desert, Jesus was 40 days (without food). Israel gave in to temptation to grumble, Jesus did not. Jesus was the true Israel. He went down to Egypt and "out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matt 2). Israel (like Adam) polluted God's holy temple, but Jesus sanctified it and chased the devil out (twice!). Israel (like Adam) made false covenants with the nations and went after their gods. Jesus kept covenant with his father and called the nations to repent and believe. He fulfilled not only the terms of the covenant of works with Adam (as the last Adam) and the terms of the pactum salutis (John 17) but also the terms of the national covenant. He kept the law, he served and loved God with all his faculties and his neighbor as himself. He obeyed _and_ offered a right sacrifice. 

rsc



Catechist said:


> Dear Prof. Clark,
> 
> I appreciate your patience with me.
> 
> I think the point I am making, is that Israel was not included under the curse in the same way which was peculiar in the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance.
> 
> Samuel Rutherford, said it this way, in his book, The Covenant of Life Opened, "But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works. The law as the Law or as a Covenant of Works is made with perfect men who need no mercy; But this covenant is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c. It is made with stiff-necked Israel Deut. 29 Deut 30.c. 31. c. 32. and that is called a covenant from the end and object, as motions are denominate from their end: for the end of the Lords pressing the law upon them was to bring them under a blessed necessity to seek salvation in their true city of Refuge Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of spiritual bondage of sin."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A5pointer said:


> Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.
> 
> Having said that you say *"NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural."* Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.
> 
> Respectfully, Bruce



Hi Bruce,
Please allow me to try and nuance what Rich has said. We use the (several) Confessions here as parameters for our discussion. None of us want to be guilty of placing man-made documents on par with the Scripture.

Having made that point clear, by relying on the Confessions (which do contain certain differences, noticably on baptism) we are "in conversation" with the _*church's*_ interpretation of Scripture in history. So the _basis_ for our discussions NOW are a frame of generally agreed-upon theology. So when Rich (or anyone else here) says that some non-Confessional view is, in his opinion, _unScriptural_ he's really saying no more than "the Confessions are RIGHT in their interpretation/expression of the correct meaning of the Scripture in this area."

In other words: there are more-vital and less-vital areas of every Confession. These days, a man can often hold non- or anti-Confessional views on eschatology, and yet those views may not appear to challenge the fundamental integrity of the Confessional interpretation of Scripture as a whole. So what about NCT? Well, all the Reformed Confessions rely to one degree or another on the Covenant Theology/History of Redemption hermeneutical stance, growing out of the Reformation. A fundamental agreement of all these Confessions--even the Baptist--is that there is ONE Covenant of Grace, though it is administered differently at different times.

NCT certainly bears similarities to Confessional Baptist covenant theology, but it also draws from disparate sources/wells as it presents its "picture" to the world. I'm not as familar with the whole movement as are some of the Confessional Baptists, who are much closer to its sphere. But clearly some of NCT's influences come up from non- and anti-Confessional roots, and so deviate from the *basis-for-unity* that we've tried to establish here.

I hope this clarifies some.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

R. Scott Clark said:


> Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more...



I laughed right out loud.


----------



## A5pointer

Contra_Mundum said:


> Hi Bruce,
> Please allow me to try and nuance what Rich has said. We use the (several) Confessions here as parameters for our discussion. None of us want to be guilty of placing man-made documents on par with the Scripture.
> 
> Having made that point clear, by relying on the Confessions (which do contain certain differences, noticably on baptism) we are "in conversation" with the _*church's*_ interpretation of Scripture in history. So the _basis_ for our discussions NOW are a frame of generally agreed-upon theology. So when Rich (or anyone else here) says that some non-Confessional view is, in his opinion, _unScriptural_ he's really saying no more than "the Confessions are RIGHT in their interpretation/expression of the correct meaning of the Scripture in this area."
> 
> In other words: there are more-vital and less-vital areas of every Confession. These days, a man can often hold non- or anti-Confessional views on eschatology, and yet those views may not appear to challenge the fundamental integrity of the Confessional interpretation of Scripture as a whole. So what about NCT? Well, all the Reformed Confessions rely to one degree or another on the Covenant Theology/History of Redemption hermeneutical stance, growing out of the Reformation. A fundamental agreement of all these Confessions--even the Baptist--is that there is ONE Covenant of Grace, though it is administered differently at different times.
> 
> NCT certainly bears similarities to Confessional Baptist covenant theology, but it also draws from disparate sources/wells as it presents its "picture" to the world. I'm not as familar with the whole movement as are some of the Confessional Baptists, who are much closer to its sphere. But clearly some of NCT's influences come up from non- and anti-Confessional roots, and so deviate from the *basis-for-unity* that we've tried to establish here.
> 
> I hope this clarifies some.



Bruce thank you, I suppose more vital/less vital can be very subjective. I don't see discussion on covenant view doing final violence to essentials. As I have said I am compelled by the biblical arguement of NCT. It seems to be a new lable and has a few faces. I believe you will find Carson and Moo amoung subscibers to forms of it. If I am reading Mr. R.Scott right he seems to lean that way. I hope he comments. As far as discussion of covenant the ones who seem to go wild are the sabatarians as NCT throws the yoke of the decalouge off in favor of the law of Christ alone, love the lord your God and your neighbor. I desire to be teachable in pursuing the truth, I just am not persuaded that covenentalism fits biblical theology ot he texts. R. Scott any thought on this?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Bruce,

I think this is the second time I've said this in this thread:

I repudiate NCT as quasi-dispensational antinomianism.

I am totally committed to the sabbatarian theology of the Westminster Standards.

rsc



A5pointer said:


> Bruce thank you, I suppose more vital/less vital can be very subjective. I don't see discussion on covenant view doing final violence to essentials. As I have said I am compelled by the biblical arguement of NCT. It seems to be a new lable and has a few faces. I believe you will find Carson and Moo amoung subscibers to forms of it. If I am reading Mr. R.Scott right he seems to lean that way. I hope he comments. As far as discussion of covenant the ones who seem to go wild are the sabatarians as NCT throws the yoke of the decalouge off in favor of the law of Christ alone, love the lord your God and your neighbor. I desire to be teachable in pursuing the truth, I just am not persuaded that covenentalism fits biblical theology ot he texts. R. Scott any thought on this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

A5pointer said:


> Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.
> 
> Having said that you say *"NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural."* Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.
> 
> Respectfully, Bruce



Bruce,

What is shocking these days, actually, is the number of people that call themselves "Reformed" that are shocked by the idea that "me and the Bible-ism" is not what Sola Scriptura actually means. Please read again carefully what I wrote and what Rev. Buchanan wrote.

Here is a good article by Rev. McMahon on the same subject:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/McMahonSolaScriptura.htm

The current issue of Modern Reformation also takes up the proper understanding of Sola Scriptura.

We are brethren within a _Confessing_ Body of believers. The Church is _not_ to be a collection of individuals with as many confessions as there are members.

My intent here is to teach and edify. If you want to learn what it means to be Reformed, this is a good place to start. Many of the major controversies today are desires for novelty and unwillingness to submit to the Church's role to testify to the Truth of the Scriptures.


----------



## Catechist

*God is Come to Prove the Elect*

Dear Prof. Clark,

Thank you for your respectful dialogue.



R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> It depends upon which use of the covenant of works is in view. It was widely held that the covenant of works was abrogated as an actual way of justification.



Agreed. Rom 3:20,21 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets



> When the older theologians spoke of republication I understand them to have been saying that the covenant of works was republished in the pedagogical use of the law to teach Israel the greatness of his sin and misery and drive him to faith in Christ. Thus, by "republication," they were saying the same thing Rutherford is saying in substance. Given the sense in which Rutherford used "covenant of works" (as in WCF ch 7 and ch 19)



Agreed in part, if by Israel you mean elect Israel, then we are agreed (WCF 7:5). The pedagogical use of the law was made specifically for the elect. 

Rutherford markedly singled out this argument in the Covenant of Life Opened (I Cor. 10:1-4, Heb 11:13), distinguishing them from the reprobate, “Who persecute the Godly the sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adams dayes, and now is to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble, Ex.20:20, Fear not (saith Moses) God is come to prove you (not to damne you) and therefore Calvin solidely observeth that Paul, (2 Cor. 3), speaks with less respect of the Law and the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affection of the Law ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel….but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, Exod. 29:20, and chase them to Christ.” 



> I think we agree that the fall creates a major in change in the way Israel could relate to the law.



From what I understand from various writers, the fall created a major change in the way elect Israel related to the law. Reprobate Israel related to the law in the same way Adam did, as Rutherford noted above. And (WCF 7:3) “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second.” Nor were the accidents of the law peculiar to the Mosaic economy only, for circumcision was first commanded to Abraham and his house, for the sake of the elect. The elect obtained the promises by approaching the law from afar-off (Heb.11:13). Israel at large had a relationship to the covenant of works that had prescribed law as law, bondage and death, as seen also in Adam. 

As to the terms and nature of the covenant of works, it was not republished as to obtain life through works of sincere obedience nor ever changed its terms and nature as to require anything less but perfect obedience. Rutherford writes, “this covenant was made with Israel only, Exod. 20, Deut 5.c.6. Deut6:5, 6:7.12. The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.” A clear distinction that agrees with the law as prescribed to elect Abraham and Israel in WCF 7:5, along with the pedagogical use and intent of the law. 



> Clearly other writers in the same period did speak of republication of the covenant of works. Indeed, it's republication was a major proof of the initial covenant of works. It' always, however, _mutatis mutandis_ - with the changes having been changed.



But I propose that these changes were made for the elect’s sake. For Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moses. The nature of the covenant of works is peculiar to Adam and all of mankind, not just Israel republished. Moses was a mediator, a type of Christ. Neither does the covenant of works command any ceremonies, sacrifices, or any type of a mediator at all. If the covenant of works were republished, it no longer retained anything due to its nature with such changes. 

Rutherford asserts, For the Lord expressly tells them, when he took them by the hand as his married people, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. He meant no other covenant then he made with Abraham, of believing, Gen. 15, and of walking before him and being perfect, Gen 17:1,2., which is somewhat more legall, as Moses and the lord expones it, Exod 2:24, Exod. 3:6, Exod. 20. 1,2. And he shows them, Lev 26, if in their enemies land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised heartsshall willingly accept of the punishment of their inquity Lev 26:42: then (saith the Lord) I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one he excludes the other. For to walk before the Lord required in Abrahams covenant Gen 17:1 is to walk in the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him. Deut 10:12-13 and Samuel, I Sam. 12:22, Joshua, Josh 24:22,23, 24, 25. And Mary, Luke 1:55, And Zacharias, ver. 70,72,73 refer to the covenant made with Abraham, and Deut 6. the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed.”



> I'm proposing that, because of her one-off, absolutely unique, typological, temporary, national covenant status, Israel had an additional, typological relation to the law relative to the land. As I tell our congregation, national Israel was a sermon illustration. Israel's relation to the land was a great drama and the _formal_, _legal_ basis for his forfeiture of the national covenant was disobedience grounded in unbelief.



I understand Rutherford to apply the typological relation of the law relative to the people of the Jews, all of which signified Christ to come, for the elect. As WCF 7:5 states, “under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignfying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elct in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.” 

The law as pressed upon Israel was not the covenant of works.



> Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It's a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works.



The covenant of works WCF 19:2, “This law after the fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments…” But such a covenant of works cannot be applied to the elect of Israel, as in 19:6, “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works…” The administration of the covenant shadows are interpreted in (WCF 7:5) for the elect, inclusive of circumcision (Gen:17). 



> I think all civil entities are in an analogous covenant of works. I may be gracious to the city and not prosecute them for their every failure, and a cop may let me drive 40 in a 35, but we _could_ and do sometimes hold each other accountable on a works basis. If the city's failures become chronic, I take them to court. If I don't mow my yard, the city fines me and I have to pay up or go to jail. Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more and I go off to jail or they have to begin performing their duties.



If the law be fulfilled by grace, we are justified by works. Nor are we in bondage to the dominion of the condemning law. But if we submit ourselves to every lawful ordinance of man for Christ’s sake, then we do well. 

Rutherford, “For there can be none under the covenant of works, and also under the covenant of grace, for they are contrair dispensations, and contrair wayes of salvation.” 



> In strict justice, God might have executed the sanctions of the covenant of works immediately against Israel but, for the purposes of the giant, historical, temporary, sermon illustration, he was gracious. Nevertheless, the type of covenant under which Israel lived as national entity was formally legal, it was a suzerain-vassal treaty. Those same families also lived under a royal grant covenant that was wholly gracious relative to salvation and justification.



I understand that Israel gained temporal merciful benefits because of God’s promises to the elect which were in Israel. When contrasting the covenant of grace with the legal civil covenant of works, Rutherford states, “There is no more reason to say, it was a civil covenant made with Abraham, because it distinguished Abrahams seed from other nations, and an earthly Covenant, because Canaan was promised to them, not to us, then to say there be two covenants of works, one made to Adam, with promise of an earthly Paradise, and another covenant of works to the Jews, with an earthly Canaan; and a third to these who in the gospel time are under the covenant of works.”



> This is a good way to account for all of the conditional legal language found throughout the Pentateuch and for the conditional language inherent in the 10words themselves: "that your days may be long in the land..."



But to Israel at large, the conditional language was but a stumblingblock, The righteousness of faith is clearly distinguished from the righteousness of Law-doing. For so Paul, Rom 10:5-7 and Moses, Deut 30:11-14. 

Rutherford, “The covenant of works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it. Exod. 24:8. And Moses took, the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words. Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See Heb 9:18-24.” 



> The national, legal covenant was a ritual. Jesus ritually re-enacted at least aspects of Israel's history. Unlike Israel, Yahweh's adopted son, the true Son Jesus did meet the qualifications to be under a covenant of works. Israel was 40 years in the desert, Jesus was 40 days (without food). Israel gave in to temptation to grumble, Jesus did not. Jesus was the true Israel. He went down to Egypt and "out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matt 2). Israel (like Adam) polluted God's holy temple, but Jesus sanctified it and chased the devil out (twice!). Israel (like Adam) made false covenants with the nations and went after their gods. Jesus kept covenant with his father and called the nations to repent and believe. He fulfilled not only the terms of the covenant of works with Adam (as the last Adam) and the terms of the pactum salutis (John 17) but also the terms of the national covenant. He kept the law, he served and loved God with all his faculties and his neighbor as himself. He obeyed _and_ offered a right sacrifice.



I do not necessarily see how you’re good words, as written here above, speak to a republication of the covenant of works for Israel at large. Israel (like Adam) is under the original terms and nature of the covenant of works without any requirement to republish another (WCF 19:2). Christ fulfills the covenant of works as our kinsmen redeemer for his elect as promised under various accidents. 

Rutherford, "And when God made the covenant with Abraham, Gen 17 and renewed the same, Deut. 29, he made it with these who were not yet standing, vs. 14,15, not with you only, &c, but virtually, radically with us Gentiles, who were not then born, as touching the substantials, for Priesthood, Law service, Types, Sacrifices, Circumcision, yea Baptism, the Lord's supper. Pastors, Teachers, Elders to rule, Deacons, were all accidents, to the substance of the Covenant, to wit, to believe in Christ and to obtain righteousness and Life by Christ."


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

Is it your understanding that the _only_ category in which we can speak of the covenant of works is soteriological?

What was Israel's function as a national, corporate entity, in the history of salvation? 

rsc




Catechist said:


> Dear Prof. Clark,
> 
> Thank you for your respectful dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Rom 3:20,21 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed in part, if by Israel you mean elect Israel, then we are agreed (WCF 7:5). The pedagogical use of the law was made specifically for the elect.
> 
> Rutherford markedly singled out this argument in the Covenant of Life Opened (I Cor. 10:1-4, Heb 11:13), distinguishing them from the reprobate, “Who persecute the Godly the sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adams dayes, and now is to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble, Ex.20:20, Fear not (saith Moses) God is come to prove you (not to damne you) and therefore Calvin solidely observeth that Paul, (2 Cor. 3), speaks with less respect of the Law and the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affection of the Law ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel….but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, Exod. 29:20, and chase them to Christ.”
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand from various writers, the fall created a major change in the way elect Israel related to the law. Reprobate Israel related to the law in the same way Adam did, as Rutherford noted above. And (WCF 7:3) “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second.” Nor were the accidents of the law peculiar to the Mosaic economy only, for circumcision was first commanded to Abraham and his house, for the sake of the elect. The elect obtained the promises by approaching the law from afar-off (Heb.11:13). Israel at large had a relationship to the covenant of works that had prescribed law as law, bondage and death, as seen also in Adam.
> 
> As to the terms and nature of the covenant of works, it was not republished as to obtain life through works of sincere obedience nor ever changed its terms and nature as to require anything less but perfect obedience. Rutherford writes, “this covenant was made with Israel only, Exod. 20, Deut 5.c.6. Deut6:5, 6:7.12. The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.” A clear distinction that agrees with the law as prescribed to elect Abraham and Israel in WCF 7:5, along with the pedagogical use and intent of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> But I propose that these changes were made for the elect’s sake. For Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moses. The nature of the covenant of works is peculiar to Adam and all of mankind, not just Israel republished. Moses was a mediator, a type of Christ. Neither does the covenant of works command any ceremonies, sacrifices, or any type of a mediator at all. If the covenant of works were republished, it no longer retained anything due to its nature with such changes.
> 
> Rutherford asserts, For the Lord expressly tells them, when he took them by the hand as his married people, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. He meant no other covenant then he made with Abraham, of believing, Gen. 15, and of walking before him and being perfect, Gen 17:1,2., which is somewhat more legall, as Moses and the lord expones it, Exod 2:24, Exod. 3:6, Exod. 20. 1,2. And he shows them, Lev 26, if in their enemies land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised heartsshall willingly accept of the punishment of their inquity Lev 26:42: then (saith the Lord) I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one he excludes the other. For to walk before the Lord required in Abrahams covenant Gen 17:1 is to walk in the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him. Deut 10:12-13 and Samuel, I Sam. 12:22, Joshua, Josh 24:22,23, 24, 25. And Mary, Luke 1:55, And Zacharias, ver. 70,72,73 refer to the covenant made with Abraham, and Deut 6. the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed.”
> 
> 
> 
> I understand Rutherford to apply the typological relation of the law relative to the people of the Jews, all of which signified Christ to come, for the elect. As WCF 7:5 states, “under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignfying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elct in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”
> 
> The law as pressed upon Israel was not the covenant of works.
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant of works WCF 19:2, “This law after the fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments…” But such a covenant of works cannot be applied to the elect of Israel, as in 19:6, “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works…” The administration of the covenant shadows are interpreted in (WCF 7:5) for the elect, inclusive of circumcision (Gen:17).
> 
> 
> 
> If the law be fulfilled by grace, we are justified by works. Nor are we in bondage to the dominion of the condemning law. But if we submit ourselves to every lawful ordinance of man for Christ’s sake, then we do well.
> 
> Rutherford, “For there can be none under the covenant of works, and also under the covenant of grace, for they are contrair dispensations, and contrair wayes of salvation.”
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that Israel gained temporal merciful benefits because of God’s promises to the elect which were in Israel. When contrasting the covenant of grace with the legal civil covenant of works, Rutherford states, “There is no more reason to say, it was a civil covenant made with Abraham, because it distinguished Abrahams seed from other nations, and an earthly Covenant, because Canaan was promised to them, not to us, then to say there be two covenants of works, one made to Adam, with promise of an earthly Paradise, and another covenant of works to the Jews, with an earthly Canaan; and a third to these who in the gospel time are under the covenant of works.”
> 
> 
> 
> But to Israel at large, the conditional language was but a stumblingblock, The righteousness of faith is clearly distinguished from the righteousness of Law-doing. For so Paul, Rom 10:5-7 and Moses, Deut 30:11-14.
> 
> Rutherford, “The covenant of works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it. Exod. 24:8. And Moses took, the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words. Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See Heb 9:18-24.”
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily see how you’re good words, as written here above, speak to a republication of the covenant of works for Israel at large. Israel (like Adam) is under the original terms and nature of the covenant of works without any requirement to republish another (WCF 19:2). Christ fulfills the covenant of works as our kinsmen redeemer for his elect as promised under various accidents.
> 
> Rutherford, "And when God made the covenant with Abraham, Gen 17 and renewed the same, Deut. 29, he made it with these who were not yet standing, vs. 14,15, not with you only, &c, but virtually, radically with us Gentiles, who were not then born, as touching the substantials, for Priesthood, Law service, Types, Sacrifices, Circumcision, yea Baptism, the Lord's supper. Pastors, Teachers, Elders to rule, Deacons, were all accidents, to the substance of the Covenant, to wit, to believe in Christ and to obtain righteousness and Life by Christ."


----------



## Catechist

*National, corporate Israel*



R. Scott Clark said:


> Kevin,
> 
> Is it your understanding that the _only_ category in which we can speak of the covenant of works is soteriological?
> 
> What was Israel's function as a national, corporate entity, in the history of salvation?
> 
> rsc



Prof. Clark,

I think it's a mistake to divorce the entity from the interwoven purpose of the entity, and how it applies to the covenanted parties of the entity, within the function of national, corporate Israel.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

I'm not sure I understand your answers at all, but if I'm close, then I think we're talking past one another. 

Could you elaborate?

Maybe these propositions will help advance the discussion?

I understand that the national covenant in Israel was added (Gal 3) to the Mosaic as a distinct, temporary entity. 

I understand the Abrahamic covenant continued unabated and was administered during the Mosaic via types and shadows.

I understand that the temporary Mosaic national covenant functioned on multiple levels simultaneously and that the land tenure promises were conditional in a way the Abrahamic covenant could never be.

rsc



Catechist said:


> Prof. Clark,
> 
> I think it's a mistake to divorce the entity from the interwoven purpose of the entity, and how it applies to the covenanted parties of the entity, within the function of national, corporate Israel.


----------



## timmopussycat

*Theonomy and the Mosaic Covenant*



R. Scott Clark said:


> One of the more important conclusions from this doctrine is one that our 17th century forefathers did not recognize very clearly is that the idea of a national covenant is defunct. God doesn't enter into national covenants with any national entity since the crucifixion. Christ's kingdom, expressed in his visible, institutional church through the preaching of the gospel, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline, knows no national boundaries (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2). The dividing wall (the civil and ceremonial laws, circumcision) has been broken down in the body of Jesus, the true Israel of God. After the expiration of the national covenant, the kingdom of God has no civil administration. Attempts to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration whether in theocracy or theonomy are fundamentally misguided. It is a puzzle how we can see so clearly that the Roman attempt to resurrect the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant is wrong but some cannot see how wrong it is to try to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration?




Tim comments -One of the problems in the Theonomy debate has been that people on both sides are talking past one another on key points. We must understand their reasons for doing what they do before we criticize them. Modern theonomists are not trying to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration: they are trying to get us to see that Divinely unamended Mosaic stipulations are an integral part of the New Covenant administration for one or both of the following reasons:

1) That Christ in Matt. 5:17,18 specifically included the Mosaic judicials within the new covenant. This is based on the belief popularized by Bahnsen in "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" that Christ was teachig that he had come to "confirm" every least detail of the ethical stipulations of the law until the end of the church age. 

2) That all Divinely unamended Mosaic civil laws and punishments are included in the WCF 19:4's phrase "general equity may require." 

These are the reasons why Theonomists want to establish Mosaic civil laws. 

Understanding why someone is doing what he does, however, does not require us to conclude that the other person is always right. There are a number of problems with both justifications for the theonomic endeavour. These are:

1) The belief that Christ was teaching what theonomists think he taught in Matt. 5:17, 18 is open to serious exegetical challenge. I wrote an extended paper addressing this question and here is the summary of the section dealing with Bahnsen's view of v. 17. (Please contact me at [email protected] for the complete paper. I'd post here but it is over the size limit.)



> At the beginning of this chapter we saw that Bahnsen's view of Mathew 5:17 would depend on whether at least four of five key premises could be established. Having examined each of Bahnsen's attempts to show that his chosen alternatives are either the only possible meaning of the words in question or are superior to all other relevant options, we now can evaluate his argument as a whole.
> 
> Bahnsen's first premise, that Christ meant His hearers to understand "the law or the prophets" as referring to "the ethical stipulations of the law," has been shown to be flawed by a number of methodological errors, including insufficient supporting arguments and a notable failure to check the original languages and the standard reference tools at key points. When we draw the logical conclusion and wonder why Christ bothered to add “or the prophets” at all, Bahnsen’s explanations are unsatisfactory. And Bahnsen does all this, in spite of Christ’s deliberate use of "or", (the meaning of which Bahnsen, by misquoting a source! misrepresents), which makes his reduction of the meaning of “the Law or the Prophets” from the entire Mosaic covenant administration to its “ethical stipulations” less likely. In addition, Bahnsen's refutation of the more likely meaning of the phrase "the law or the prophets," i.e. the Mosaic covenant, has been shown to be inadequate on two of his three grounds, and the third will be shortly be shown to be equally flawed. Thus Bahnsen's first premise, already highly unlikely, presently hangs by a thread shortly to be cut off.
> 
> Bahnsen's second premise, that kataloosai must mean "annul" here is clearly incorrect: Bahnsen failed to discuss why kataloo which certainly took the meaning “destroy” rather than “annul,” when used of the law in Gal. 2:18 cannot mean the same thing in Matt. 5:17, a particularly significant omission given that the KJV translators thought “destroy” was a better fit in that context. In addition, even if kataloosai was intended to mean "annul" here, "alla", as Bahnsen himself later recognized, does not always force a meaning of total contradiction on the words it separates, and thus Bahnsen's required third premise, that kataloosai must force the translation of pleroosai as "confirm" also collapses.
> 
> Bahnsen's next error is his rejection, without sufficient discussion, of four known and decidedly relevant meanings of “fulfill” for pleroo despite the substantial Scriptural support that they enjoy, and their demonstrable relevance that each has in the context of Matthew 5:17. Instead, he opts for the uncertain translational possibility “confirm” in the sense of "establish the ongoing validity of," a possibility made considerably weaker by the lack of solid evidence that either the Hebrew mla or the Greek pleroo ever took the meaning "confirm" in that sense in the New Testament era. This lack of evidence destroys the fourth premise that plhrwsai meant "confirm" in that sense. Finally, the now essential fifth premise: that "confirm" in the sense of "establish the ongoing applicability of commands" is a logical and legitimate implication of translating plhrw by "fulfill" has been demonstrated to be both illogical and false to the Scriptures.
> 
> Finally, Bahnsen makes Christ out to have made a massive error in His choice of words by using the misleading pleroosai to mean “confirm,” rather than the far more fitting istemi (“confirm/establish”) or apokathistemi (“confirm / restore”) both of which were well known, available to Him, and would have established the Theonomic thesis beyond any possibility of doubt. In short, by inserting the meaning “confirm” for pleroo with no real lexical grounds for doing so, it is Bahnsen, not Poythress who is “…overlook[ing] the obvious…” and “…importing preconceived ideas into the text, rather than reading them out of the text” and doing violence to the context. Of Bahnsen's five premises, his first now hangs by a thread, his failed second premise has been made irrelevant by the failure of his third, and both of his last two premises have been shown to be insupportable.
> 
> Since Bahnsen has misunderstood the subject of Christ's thought, the relationship between the two verbs brought about by the conjunction, and the meanings of both of the key verbs in this verse, it is clear that his exegetical case for the Theonomic thesis has not met the burden of proof. At this point it is clear that Bahnsen’s Theonomy is one thesis Christ is not teaching in these verses.



2) That the Theonomists also misunderstand the extent the Wetminster Divines gave to "general equity may require" is easily demonstrated simply by showing how individual Westminster divines did not require all Mosaic stipulations to be followed or amended them without authorization. A good example of the latter is Gillespie who permitted the magistrate not to inflict the death penalty for heresy in particular circumstances. Gillespie wrote



> …the fifth and last is that kind of toleration whereby the Magistrate when it is in the power of his hand to punish and extirpate, yet having to do with such of whom there is good hope either of reducing them by convincing their judgments, or of uniting them to the Church by a safe accommodation of differences, he grants them a supersedeas [forbearance]; or though there be no such ground of hope concerning them, yet while he might crush them with the foot of power, in Christian piety and moderation, he forbears so far as may not be destructive to the peace and right government of the Church, using his coercive power with such a mixture of mercy as creates no mischief to the rest of the Church.
> I speak not only of bearing with those who are weak in faith (Rom. 15:1), but of sparing even those who have perverted the faith, so far as the word of God and rules of Christian moderation would have severity tempered with mercy: that is (as has been said) so far as is not destructive to the Church's peace, nor shakes the foundations of the established form of church government, and no further…


 Gillespie, George "Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty," London, 1644, now online at http://www.naphtali.com/severity.htm

Here Gillespie allows the magistrate to do something not allowed by the Mosaic judicials. The relevant statues were not explicitly amended in the NT nor do we find any NT teaching from which we can derive Gillespie's conclusion by good and necessary consequence. Gillespie clearly does not follow Bahnsen's hermeneutical axiom:



> In all of its minute detail, (every jot and tittle) the law of God down to its least significant provision should be reckoned to have an abiding validity- until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise.


 (Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position" in God and Politics, Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1989, pp. 40, 41.)

Since the two men disagree at the level of basic principle, we can be certain that Gillespie was no Theonomist.


----------



## Catechist

R. Scott Clark said:


> Kevin,
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> I understand that the national covenant in Israel was added (Gal 3) to the Mosaic as a distinct, temporary entity.



True, but I would also conclude that gentile nations, which become visible churches in the NT, no longer under age as in OT Israel, may also covenant nationally. Not based in judicals (I'm not a theonomist) but based on national church status. So Rutherford argues, such should not be scoffed at, and supplies many good arguments from the same.



> I understand the Abrahamic covenant continued unabated and was administered during the Mosaic via types and shadows.



True.



> I understand that the temporary Mosaic national covenant functioned on multiple levels simultaneously and that the land tenure promises were conditional in a way the Abrahamic covenant could never be.



True, but I distinguish between the premise and function of national covenants. The Mosaic national covenant was premised upon many conditional law functions which are now abrogated, ceremonial and judical. NT national covenants are premised upon the moral law, both tables. Which when a nation becomes a national established church, they must function based upon the moral law, and implement moral laws based upon the general equity of the judical law, which laws may take on various forms in various nations, with no requirement to exact the judicals of the OT.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Can we, for the purpose of discussion, divide the question?

Let's set aside whether there can be post-canonical national covenants and focus on whether God may be said to have made a national covenant with Israel and in what way it was conditional.

Could you elaborate on the ways in which the Israelite national covenant was conditional?

rsc


----------



## Catechist

R. Scott Clark said:


> Can we, for the purpose of discussion, divide the question?
> 
> Let's set aside whether there can be post-canonical national covenants and focus on whether God may be said to have made a national covenant with Israel and in what way it was conditional.
> 
> Could you elaborate on the ways in which the Israelite national covenant was conditional?
> 
> rsc



I'm not sure I can divide the question and speak to the covenant of the law for the Jew only? For what's conditional for national covenants are mere circumstances of the esssential frame of the church, whether it be under age or no. The conditions of the Israelite national covenant were not in oppostion to the New Covenant. 

"A good example of the different application of the law-gospel antithesis is seen in comparing Bullinger with Luther on Gen. 17. Luther’s law-gospel hermeneutic forces him into a form of Dispensationalism, where Gen. 17 is a covenant of law for the Jew only, in opposition to the New Covenant. In contrast, Bullinger and the Reformed understood Gen. 17 to be a covenant for the church for all ages, consistent with the coming of Christ, and therefore part of the covenant of grace."

I have found the above stated here, http://thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/samuel-petto-on-sinai-an-introductory-essay/ which is a fuller explanation of our topic under discussion.

I'm attempting to answer your question as directly as possible, please pardon my inability break down the Israelite national covenant conditions separately.


----------



## MW

Prof. Clark,

Having read your article in the Confessional Presbyterian, it seems that you acknowledge the internal/external distinction in traditional reformed covenant theology, and that the covenant of grace as externally administered under the New Testament is conditional. I applaud you for faithfully expounding the reformed view in opposition to FV misconceptions. But to be consistent, this means the conditionality of the "covenant of law" does not render it a covenant of works. Rather, as the WCF clearly teaches, this is the covenant of grace administered under the law in contrast to its administration under the gospel.


----------



## Calvibaptist

I realize I am bringing up a very old thread, but I have a question from a very different perspective regarding Horton's book.

I am a recovering ex-Dispensationalist. It is all I have ever known. I am slowly having the scales removed from my eyes, but it is a long process. Not long to give up dispieness, just long to figure out where I belong and how it all fits together.

Anyway, my question regards Horton's view of land promises belonging specifically to the Mosaic Covenant. I agree with him that the Mosaic Covenant was conditional and temporary. No problem there. But then he traces Dispensationalists error to the fact that they take the land promises of the Mosaic Covenant and make them permanent.

In discussing the Mosaic covenant, he says, "Dispensationalism and the so-called two-covenant theory currently popular in mainline theology both treat the land promise as eternal and irrevocable, even to the extent that there can be a difference between Israel and the church in God's plan. Bot interpretations, however, fail to recognize that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves qualify this national covenant in strictly conditional terms." (Horton, pg 47)

While I agree with him about the problem concerning the separation of Israel and the church, I disagree with him about where Dispensationalists get their view of the land promises. They trace the land promises not to the Mosaic Covenant, but to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Genesis 12:6-7 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." 

And, more specifically (with no requirements from Abram)

Genesis 15:18-21 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates -- 19 "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 "the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 "the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

Genesis 17:7-8 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, *all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession;* and I will be their God." 

Does Covenant Theology see this as a conditional promise? I recognize that the Mosaic realization was conditional, but is the Abrahamic? What do we do with this description of land?

Help!


----------

