# Does Witsius seem confused? Mosaic mixture of CofG & Works discussion..



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2011)

I am posting two questions here. One concerning Witsius and the other concerning the Westminster Confession on chapter 19. 

Witsius First.....


> Here is a bit more of Witsius.
> Of the Decalouge
> 
> Thirdly, 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 for righteousness and salvation. For, we have already proved (B. 1. chap. ix. section 20) that this could not possibly be renewed in that manner with a sinner, en account of the justice and truth of God, and the nature of the covenant of works, which admits of no pardon of sin. See also Hornbeck.Theol. Pract. tom. 2. p. 10. Besides, if the Israelites were taught to seek salvation by the works of the law, then the law had been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before. But now says the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. "the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace.
> ...



I am trying to determine whether or not the Mosaic was an Administration of the Covenant of Grace or some mixture. This issue is very important to the Reformed Baptist way of thinking. ie. Owen and Nehemiah Coxe. 

Maybe I am mistaken but Witsius seems to point out that the Mosaic is both the CofW and the CofG here. http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/covenantal-ideas-by-dr-herman-witsius/

*1.)Does Witsius hold that the Mosaic is a mixture of both Covenants and thus a partial republication of the Covenant of Works along side the Covenant of Grace?*


*2.)Now for my Question on the WCF. Does the Westminster Confession expressly deny that the law was given through Moses "as a covenant of works?"*



> Section I.–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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2011)

Witsius explains that the Mosaic covenant *teaches* the covenant of works


> the doctrine [teaching] of the covenant of works was repeated...
> ...thus put in mind of the covenant of works,


whereas *in substance* the covenant is properly an extension of the covenant of grace, being its aim and end/intent


> being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace



In the following section:


> there likewise accompanied this giving of the law the *repetition of some things, belonging to the covenant of grace*.
> 
> these things *manifestly discover a covenant of grace*: and without supposing the suretiship of the Messiah, it could not, consistently with the divine justice and truth be proposed to man a sinner. Judiciously says Calvin on Exod.19,17 "by these words we are taught, that these prodigies or signs were not given, to drive the people from the presence of God; nor were they struck with any terror to exasperate their minds with a hatred [of] instruction; but that the covenant of God was no less lovely than awful. For, they are commanded to go and meet God, to present themselves with a ready affection of soul to obey him. Which could not be, unless *they had heard something in the law besides precepts and threatnings*."


So, Witsuis quoting Calvin to his support.

Then:


> LI. Having premised these observations I answer to the question. The covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai *was not formally the covenant of works.* 1st Because that 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. 2dly 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. 3dly Because it did not conclude Israel under the curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off if they sinned but in the least instance.
> 
> LII. However, 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.
> ....
> The design of the Apostle therefore, in that place [Gal.4:24-25], is not to teach us that the covenant of mount Sinai was nothing but a covenant of works, altogether opposite to the Gospel covenant; but only that the gross Israelites misunderstood the mind of God, and basely abused his covenant, as all such do who seek for righteousness by the law.



Lastly,


> LIII. *Nor was it formally a covenant of grace*, because that requires not only obedience but also promises and bestows strength to obey. For thus covenant of grace is made known, Jer.32,39 "I will give them one heart and one way that they fear me for ever." But such a promise appears not in the covenant made at mount Sinai. Nay; God on this very account distinguishes the new covenant of grace from the Sinaitic, Jer.31,31-32-33. And Moses loudly proclaims, Deut.29,4 "yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear unto this day." Certainly the chosen from among Israel had obtained this. Yet not in virtue of this covenant which stipulated obedience and gave not power for it; but in virtue of the covenant of grace which also belonged to them.
> LIV. What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words. God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise *supposed a covenant of grace*. For, without the assistance of the covenant of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace. It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terrour of which being increased by those tremendous signs, that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. *This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works but was formally neither the one nor the other*.
> ....
> If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of work or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither, but a covenant of sincere piety which supposes both.



I think that one must begin with the basic concept of CoW/CoG, underlying all of world history. The Story of the Bible IS the story of the Covenant of Grace, the Covenant of Works being broken in the first pages. But the curse of it stands behind every additional sentence of the story, until it is undone in the remaking of the heavens and the earth.

The reason there can be a national covenant, for the Israelite people of God, is because there is a covenant of grace. There is no other covenant of blessing for mankind that is not an administration of the Covenant of Grace. I will not put words in Witsius' mouth; however, I cannot see him denying this tenet. Regarding works, it could not possibly bless men thereby, nor might it damn men again or any further than they are already, so it cannot be essentially or even serve (properly) an unbroken covenant of works--the setting up of it assumes the fallen condition. Whatever of Sinai reflects the prototypical covenant of the Garden, it cannot be at base or in essence a covenant of works--but it must serve the ends of the covenant of grace.

I think Wistius' use of the term "formally" is the key to understanding his presentation. He thereby avoids committing to an ambiguous stance. Personally, I think there is a better way of stating the case, and avoiding ambiguity, and I'd like to see a stronger statement on Sinai being (at base) a gracious engagement. However, I will grant Witsius what I think is his reason for speaking as he does, and maintain that he still thinks of Sinai as impossible (in the world that is) apart from grace.
_______________

As to the WCF, 19.1 equates or correlates "a law" given to Adam with the CoW. 19.2 explains the law that bound Adam as equal or correlative to the moral law (perfect rule of righteousness), presented or delivered in the form of the Ten Words given at Sinai. The remainder of the law given at Sinai is _commentary or application_.

But it is the earlier ch.7 that expressly teaches that Sinai was an administration of the Covenant of Grace:


> 7.5 *This covenant* [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: 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 fore-signifying Christ to come: which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called, the Old Testament.
> 
> 7.6 ...There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but *one and the same*, under various dispensations.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 19, 2011)

> This issue is very important to the Reformed Baptist way of thinking. ie. *Owen* and Nehemiah Coxe.



Which Owen is that?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2011)

John Owen. If I remember correctly he didn't think the Mosaic was fully either the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. That is if I remember correctly.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh I thought you were referring to an Owen who was a Reformed Baptist. 

With regards to John Owen and Sinai. He sees the covenant as similar to the main healed of blindness in Mark 8. Sinai is the gracious covenant of seeing men as trees, whereas the new covenant is the complete healing of sight. 

See volume XXIII p. 72 for details.

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

Oh and the only reason why I know this is I have Dr. Fergueson's "John Owen on the Christian Life" here on my shelves. I quickly looked it up for you. I have nowhere near exhaustive knowledge on the subject.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2011)

I will try and find you a reference to his comment on the Mosaic. I believe it might be in his Hebrews 8 commentary. But I will check.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 20, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I will try and find you a reference to his comment on the Mosaic. I believe it might be in his Hebrews 8 commentary. But I will check.



I gave you page number to his Hebrews 8 commentary in my previous post.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2011)

Evidently John Owen didn't see the Mosaic as either the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace. He seems to have viewed it as some intermediate somewhat impotent Covenant that pointed to these two Covenants in their fullness. 



> 5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was "the ministry of condemnation," 2 Corinthians 3:9; for "by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified." And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
> John Owen
> Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8
> pp. 85.86 Goold


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2011)

Another question.... Is this possibly how the Mosaic Covenant was broken? 



> (Rom 9:31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
> 
> (Rom 9:32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
> 
> ...



They didn't seek the law of righteousness by faith but by works and thus they missed the mark?

I am trying to work out this Mosaic Covenant and understand it as being an Administration of the Covenant of Grace and that CofG being of the same substance as it is all the way through the scriptures into the New Covenant. I am also seeing a distinction in that some want to equate the Holiness of God on Mt. Sinai as the Covenant of Works and that is a mistake in my thinking. It was terrible and scary but only in the relationship that God showed His Holiness and the mount trembled and quaked. Are you guys understanding what I am trying to understand? I can understand why the one would be breakable and the New Covenant not breakable of faith alone as to where faith alone was also required in the Mosaic but that Covenant was placed in a dispensation and upon a people who might not exhibit faith. Therefore they entered into the Mosaic not understanding that faith was the principle of it. Am I making sense?

BTW, I am getting great benefit out this paper that was done for Joseph Pipa. http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2011/01/klhortonian-theology-and-mosaic.html


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 21, 2011)

My opinion (which admittedly amounts to two ZWDs) is that Sinai was an edition of the CoG. But if we look at the Pharisees, they missed the point and turned Sinai into a CoW. The commands from Sinai no longer pointed to the Messiah, but if followed they would bring about the Messiah.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2011)

I would also think that the Tabernacle implied that they would understand their need for grace and mercy. It also taught them to seek God for reconciliation by faith in His provision. Thus it taught reconciliation and taught them the grace of living in light of God's law. After all the law also gave the blessing of living right. After all Jesus himself said that the Law taught us to Love God and our neighbor. If faith became a principle in the Mosaic as it appears to me it did, it was all one thing tied together. Maybe I am grasping at straw.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 21, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> My opinion (which admittedly amounts to two ZWDs) is that Sinai was an edition of the CoG. But if we look at the Pharisees, they missed the point and turned Sinai into a CoW. The commands from Sinai no longer pointed to the Messiah, but if followed they would bring about the Messiah.



Yes, a simple summary. An administration of the COG. Not a republished COW as the Pharisees would have us believe.

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

And Randy, I would remind you of Dr. Venema's journal article where in dissecting the "Law is Not of Faith, he discusses Witsius' views on the Sinai covenant. Venema compares them to Calvin's view and finds them wanting as somewhat of an unclear admixture and "not altogether helpful". Which explains why the modern day republicationists will often appeal to Witsius because they will find language that "sounds" supportive of their minority view.


----------



## JM (Jul 21, 2011)

"The Law at Sinai was a covenant of works to all the carnal descendants of Abraham, but a rule of life to the spiritual. Thus, like the pillar of cloud, the law had both a bright and a dark side to it" (Thomas Bell, 1814, The Covenants).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2011)

JM said:


> "The Law at Sinai was a covenant of works to all the carnal descendants of Abraham, but a rule of life to the spiritual. Thus, like the pillar of cloud, the law had both a bright and a dark side to it" (Thomas Bell, 1814, The Covenants).



I am having problems thinking like this now. The Law at Sinai was a means of Grace to reveal and point to Christ in my estimation. It did reveal the curse of the Law in the Covenant of Works but it was primarily set to be a means of grace to pull them out of it. Here is the way, walk ye in it. Let me explain even further. 

In Exodus 20 when the Children of Israel saw the sight they feared God. Mt. Sinai revealed God's holiness. It revealed the need for a mediator for them. I am not so sure it condemned them in a new way. They were already condemned by the prelapsarian Covenant. All of mankind was condemned for one single act in Adam. Revealing that to a blind soul is all of grace. I believe the same is true as Christ revealed it again. 



> (Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> 
> (Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
> 
> ...



The same is true in Moses also. Moses was given the law for those who would believe in the whole of it. That includes the purchase of God in redeeming Israel from bondage to bring them into Covenant with him. That they might walk with Him. That they might receive pardon for sin and be justified. And if they disobeyed they would be cast from the land. A parallel of this casting away can be found in the New Covenant church also. It can be found individually and corporately. Two texts to back this up are 1 Corinthians 5 where the man was in gross sin and he was to be put away. The second is found in the warnings of Christ in Revelation 2:5 where Christ says He will remove them. 



> (1Co 5:1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
> 
> 
> (1Co 5:2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
> ...





> (Rev 2:5) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.



Now this does no harm to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. Yes, Obedience is required as it is required of Children but this isn't about justification. It is about our sanctification and how we live. Christ does demand obedience in the gospel and our obedience is more complete in Christ as it is done in gratitude instead of looking for justification by it. 

In fact you can see the grace in this if you look at Hebrews 12.



> (Heb 12:5) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
> 
> 
> (Heb 12:6) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
> ...



The Mosaic is looking more and more like the New Covenant to me as I ponder things. The New is just fulfilled by the person and work of Christ. He is the Pashal Lamb who fulfilled it. Justification by faith alone was the call of the day back in the Mosaic also. Just as a side note. I really appreciated something that Richard Tallach stated once here on the PB. "The New Covenant can also "gender to bondage" if it is turned into a CoW by sinful man." From the looks of it it appears that is what some of the Israelites did the Mosaic also. And we have seen this happen over and over. They turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works constantly. ie pelagianism or neonomism.



> (Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, *which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them*.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2011)

The biggest sticking point to me about considering the Sinai covenant a covenant of works is that if that were so, then why did it take so long for God to eject the people of God out of the land? Most republicationists believe that it was a covenant of works regarding keeping the land. But Adam was ejected pronto, after he disobeyed. Furthermore, there was a way of forgiveness in the Sinai covenant: the sacrificial system (of course, only as a prefiguring of Christ). More and more I am coming to see that the CoW and the CoG both thread their way through all redemptive history. They are parallel. If a person is not part of the CoG, then they are still under the sanctions of the CoW. Just because Adam broke it doesn't mean that humanity is now free from its effects. The CoG provides a way for us to be free from the sanctions of the CoW. I believe that Sinai reminds us very carefully about the CoW, but that is different from being a republication. I still think that republication falls within the realm of orthodoxy (the Marrow men certainly believed it). But I think singling out Sinai as a republication is a bit selective: the entire OT republishes the CoW for everyone who is not part of the CoG.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2011)

Does it republish it or reveal the effects of it? I believe it graciously reveals the effects of it and that isn't republication. And if what I am understanding about the marrow they would line up more under that than a republication idea. I don't believe God is reexecuting anything by a republication. If I am not mistaken that is what republishing a covenant means.

I also believe the New Covenant also reveals the Covenant of Works as did the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> Most republicationists believe that it was a covenant of works regarding keeping the land. But Adam was ejected pronto, after he disobeyed. Furthermore, there was a way of forgiveness in the Sinai covenant: the sacrificial system (of course, only as a prefiguring



Also a note may be taken that their dispelling from the land wasn't a once for all thing. It was more of a disciplining so that they could be cleansed of their idolatry. They were brought back into the land after they were disciplined as was the man who sinned and repented in 1 Corinthians 5. There ejection wasn't like the CofW.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 24, 2011)

If Sinai was actually a republished COW, there is a real difficulty in seeing how Israel could have even *entered* the promised land, let alone remain in it after entering. Long before entering the land, Israel immediately and grievously sinnned at the base of the mountain, violating this supposed republished COW. Instead, if we accept the Reformed consensus that the covenant at Sinai as an administration of the COG --with the legal aspects certainly in the foreground-- then we can understand why God graciously permitted them to enter the land, God's institution of sacrificial system pointing to Christ, etc.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 25, 2011)

The only way that the CoW is "republished" after the Fall is hypothetically as a gracious Gospel tool by which to encourage men to embrace the Gospel.

A hypothetical republication is not a real republication. A real republication would involve God encouraging fallen men to get to heaven by their works, which would not be moral or gracious or honest on God's part.

We have a hypothetical "republication" in the case of e.g. our Lord and the Rich Young Ruler.

Hypothetical "republication" involves presenting the CoW as an alternative to the Gospel in order to make clear to the sinner that the CoW way is now closed because of the Fall.

E.g. the preacher may say, "There is another way by which a man may be right with God. If you live a perfectly sinless life from the first moment of your existence until your death!"

There may be some hypothetical elements in the Mosaic Covenant but these elements should not confusingly be called a RoCoW, as they are there of God's grace to that childhood Church.

Of course we know that God does graciously rewards our rather smelly good works here and in Heaven, but not because they have any intrinsic merit of their own, but because they are accepted and made fragrant in Christ. It is our justification and not our sanctification that takes us to Heaven.

There maybe something typologically of this going on, with the Israelites enjoying extended tenure in the Land and the extra blessings of the Land. But this all points to the CoG not the CoW.

*Lane*


> Just because Adam broke it doesn't mean that humanity is now free from its effects.



Well we all broke it in Adam. The first man and his offspring were named "adam" by God (Genesis 5:2) just as Adam had the right to name the animals (Genesis 2:20)

By nature we think and feel spiritually in terms of the CoW, even if we are born under the gracious admin of the CoG.

Even after regeneration we can still be largely thinking in terms of the CoW, which leads to problems regarding assurance.



> For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Rom 6:14, ESV)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2011)

I was going through my bookmarks and found this thread. This may seem harsh but there is a misconception that was hindering me from seeing that the Mosaic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. The thread I am referring to here is four years old and it has taken me this long to understand some of this stuff and I am not sure I still understand it. But I believe it is becoming clearer to me.  

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/

The thread starts off with this post. 



Andrew P.C. said:


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



I am kind of reeling in my seat by the Theologian's conclusion about Kline.  


> Meredith Kline of Westminster Seminary in California has returned to the classic correlation between the Law and Gospel dichotomy and the dichotomy between the covenant of works and grace.To answer the liberals and dispensationalists, he has argued that there is one covenant of grace in the history of salvation, but that the Mosaic covenant, though gracious with respect to justification, had a works element relative to Israel's tenure in Canaan.



If you follow the thread I link to above my argument sounds like I am closer to this man's conclusion as a Reformed Baptist than a Reformed Theologian of the 15 and 1600's. He sounds more like a dispensationalist (or Reformed Baptist) than the Reformed Theologians I have been reading lately. It also seems that this thinking may be in fact a little at odds with most of the Reformers who drafted the Confession of Faith. It kind of looks like he took a hard right turn to avoid the Federal Vision and veered off the path of Reformed thinking into Reformed Baptist thinking. If this is true it is no wonder why I have been confused for so many years about the Mosaic Covenant. 

Are my perceptions correct? Especially with how I am seeing the Mosaic now. Even concerning the Land.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Most republicationists believe that it was a covenant of works regarding keeping the land. But Adam was ejected pronto, after he disobeyed. Furthermore, there was a way of forgiveness in the Sinai covenant: the sacrificial system (of course, only as a prefiguring)
> ...



Okay, Now back to cleaning out my bookmarks. LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2011)

> Consider Thomas Boston's scheme:





> "The unbelieving Israelites were under the covenant of grace made with their father Abraham externally and by profession, in respect of their visible church state; but under the covenant of works made with their father Adam internally and really, in respect of the state of their souls before the Lord. Herein there is no absurdity; for to this day many in the visible church are thus, in these different respects, under both covenants. Farther, as to believers among them, they were internally and really, as well as externally, under the covenant of grace; and only externally under the covenant of works, and that, not as a covenant co-ordinate with, but subordinate and subservient unto, the covenant of grace: and in this there is no more inconsistency than in the former." (Works 7:196, note n.)



Even if one holds to the scheme of the Marrow men it still appears to be a far cry from Klinean thought which Rev. Winzer states below is two covenants side by side rather than one covenant subordinated to the other. As Dr. ***** is quoted in the prior post concerning republication, it is Kline's view the Mosaic's "Republication of the Covenant of Works was a "*temporary, legal, superimposition upon the covenant of grace.*" Anyways, I think you get my drift. The Marrow thought of Boston doesn't appear to be the thought of Modern Reformation, i.e. Klinean thought. That is if I am understanding it correctly. If I am not help me get it clear please.  



armourbearer said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > (e) If an aspect of the Republication is that Israel had to reach a certain moral standard collectively to remain in the Land, this would still be traced to grace if she achieved it. If she achieved the moral standard to remain in the Land, this would be because a large percentage of the people of Israel were living according to God's law. But a large percentage of Israel would only be living according to God's law by true faith in Him. But a large/larger percentage of Israel would have true faith in God, by God's grace. So the fact that Israel was eventually cast out of the Land was because of their despite for God's grace.
> ...



BTW, Does anyone know who does this site? It is most helpful. http://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/Home 
R. Anderw Myers led me to it and I would like to know if anyone knows who put this together. It is very helpful.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jul 28, 2011)

> 19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: _*for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
> 
> 23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.*_ 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
> - Galatians 3:19-29



Sorry this isn't an answer to the OP. I'm unfamiliar with Witsius. - but I do like this commentary by Gill on Galatians 3:19. I think that it might pertain to the discussion, if I'm off then please forgive me. Galatians 3:19 by John Gill.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2011)

David,
Your contribution is just fine. I won't speak as to whether Gill proposes Moses' a _second_ covenant entirely (that language not appearing to my eye in the excerpt, and further on).

But there is this line from Gill:


> four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made with Abraham; it {Moses' covenant} did not succeed it {Abraham's covenant}, nor take the place of it, and so make it null and void; but was *over and above added unto it*, for the sake of restraining transgressions;


The issue of the proper relation of Abraham's covenant to Moses' is certainly to the point. And the question of Paul's precise meaning is certainly vital.

The following points are summary of CT on this:
1) The promise-covenant to Abraham is perpetual, and foundational.
2) Therefore, when Moses brings the law, a) there is (in the literal heart of the Pentateuch, Leviticus) a substitutionary, sacrificial forgiveness-system, and 
b) the rest of the Mosaic administration is also punctuated with tokens of grace and promise, because
c) the Abrahamic promise is still present, having been retained within new forms suitable for the subsequent age of typological, semi-fulfillment.​3) Moses' legal-prescriptions and the associated vows, blessings and threats--rather than being _integral_ to or with the promissory essence of the covenant--are superadded, and specific to the particular administration.
4) However, it is not as though it were at all possible to de-link the Abrahamic elements of the national-covenant from the Mosaic construction. Men are not free to choose the age in which they live, or the form of covenant-relation under which they are assigned.
5) Therefore, in order to properly participate in the types that foresignified the coming Messiah (an instructional elaboration on the pre-extant sacrificial institution) and built up faith in him, it was requisite that Israel be subjected to the bondage of the law.
6) But, to paraphrase Boston, this presents no inconsistency or absurdity. The actual inconsistency comes when the form of "law" is taken as the essence of Moses' covenant, allowing the externals and the principle of human effort to ultimately obscure the gracious basis for the covenant.
7) We understand 2Cor.3:13ff to teach that the divine imposition of a blinding glory-quality in that Old Covenant was _in order that a great number in *Israel should not see the grace of the promise*, and so be turned from their sins._ "Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts."

This last is a great offense to people who hate and despise the sovereignty of God in election. They cannot agree that God should ever have blinded the eyes of anyone, hardened the heart of anyone, "lest... they should turn, and be healed" (Is.6:10). Least of all, that God should have used the *means of grace* (!) ever to do so. This, they believe, could never be--it is inconceivable. Likewise, they cannot imagine the same could ever be so today--that in the preaching of the gospel, or the administration of the sacraments, the non-elect _who are within the walls of the church_ "harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others" (WCF 5.6).


> 1Pet.2:8, "and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."



I'll add one more point,
8) What Paul means, then in opposing grace/faith to law ala Gal.3:12 "the law is not of faith," is we should understand, specific to the question of Galatians with regard to justification, these are contrary principles (see Calvin, loc cit.). And that no one (other than Christ, in a certain sense, Rom.10:4, Is.53:11; 42:1) has ever been justified according to any external or legal principle, in the history of the world.

I hope these observations are of use to to all.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 28, 2011)

"BTW, Does anyone know who does this site? It is most helpful. The Mosaic Covenant 
R. Anderw Myers led me to it and I would like to know if anyone knows who put this together. It is very helpful." 

----------
Randy, I believe that site is at least in part put together by OPC minister Benji Swinburnson.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jul 28, 2011)

Rev. Buchanan, 

Thank you for taking the time on your reply and I couldn't agree more. 

I was just thinking about the whole Covenant of Grace. 

Sorry, I'm just a layman and I know that it is very obvious in my writing; please forgive me. So I'm just going to throw this out in my simple way. 

But I guess to look at this in a more "Biblical Theology" way or in a more progressive revelation way or a more organic redemptive way. As far as the focus so far being on the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenants, couldn't we certainly go all the way back to the garden to see this?

I know this is going to be confusing... I have a hard time making things clear. 

It seems to me that there is always something that God establishes for a basis for faith. But is this a basis for works? This is the situation that seems to me that get's a lot of people confused. 

So, in the garden; something had to be done, the shedding of blood. So right from the beginning there was a sacrificial system developed. By faith, Abel's sacrifice was acceptable. By faith so was Noah's. By faith so was Abraham's. So, was it work on the part of Abel, Noah and Abraham because they had to do something? Or was it faith, because it was simply the heart's desire to obey the one thing that God had instituted and prescribed to be done? 

Would Cain have been justified if he had just simply obeyed and also sacrificed an animal? 

Yeah, I know I'm rambling here, sorry.  

But yes, absolutely; it seems impossible for most people to accept God's absolute sovereignty.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2011)

David,
There certainly is connection back to Eden; the whole of Gen.1-11 is prologue that sits in the background of of Abraham. In other words, rather than introducing us to Abraham de novo, God gives us the history that is necessary for our introduction. God ties the whole human race to Abraham by means of the previous eleven chapters, and the promise to him that "in you shall *all the nations* of the earth be blessed" makes for good sense when we see that we are tied tangibly to him.

Scripture itself puts the emphasis on God's covenant with Abraham. But there's never been a "work" whereby a sinner might find favor with God--not even before Abraham. Always by faith in the promise, first given Gen.3:15.

The only way any sinner is able to do any work that pleases God is if God has already received him in forgiveness. Because of his grace, we are able to love him, which love is the basis for our works. True obedience comes from the heart, not from law. Law can never be a sufficient motive for us--it may be sufficient for the angels, but then, the angels are infinitely fascinated with God's plan of redemption which he shows them (1Pet.1:12), but for which beings no grace was ever instituted in case of rebellion (2Pet.2:4).

So, it is possible in this sense to say that the CoG is behind our works, and I think "behind" is maybe better language than "basis."

When God institutes sacrificial lessons/worship in the Garden, it is expected that those in whom the Spirit works faith will follow God's designated means for renewing fellowship with him. I think Scripture is clear that Cain's heart is not right, 1Jn.3:15; cf. Gen.4:6; Heb.11:4. Because the heart isn't right, Cain thinks he has the right to decide what instrument will bring him into fellowship. His autonomy resents the idea that he should have to trade his own produce, borne of the sweat of his toil, for his brother's production, in order to have the right gift.

Of course, we can never know if Cain's submission to God's rule (outwardly) could have ultimately been tied to eternal blessing for him. All we could have done then, absent any special revelation, would have been to accept what we were able to see--an obedient man. That we find a disobedient man, who then let his rage run free to destroy the image of God (even an obedient image), leads us to the opposite conclusion: that he was unfaithful. No, he could not have been justified without faith--whereas Abel was, Heb.11:4.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jul 28, 2011)

Good stuff Rev. .... me thinks you know your bible pretty well.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 29, 2011)

*Martin*


> I was going through my bookmarks and found this thread. This may seem harsh but there is a misconception that was hindering me from seeing that the Mosaic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. The thread I am referring to here is four years old and it has taken me this long to understand some of this stuff and I am not sure I still understand it. But I believe it is becoming clearer to me.



Don't worry about not understanding. There's obviously room for debate here when godly, intelligent Reformed men don't see eye to eye on this.

I just don't see how you can have a CoW in any real sense _after_ Man has fallen. _Any_ attention God paid to demeriting Israelites was of His grace to sinners. They could only be saved by grace - as the Republicationists admit. But they also could only remain in the Land by God's grace. All God's picture book Gospel and other teaching aids were of His grace to sinners, not to holy people like Adam.

Any acceptable but smelly good works which the regenerate among them would have done to stay in the Land or to enjoy further blessing in the Land would only have been products of God's saving grace and were only accepted in Christ.

The first time they were put out of the Land was because of neglecting God's grace by following false Gods - libertinism.

The second time they were put out of the Land was because of neglecting God's grace revealed in Christ by trying to save themselves by their own works -legalism.

The republication theory seems theologically incoherent and unstable, especially when they find it so hard to define what they mean by republication.

Even if it was a test to accept an imperfect level of righteousness for the Israelites to have tenure, or blessed tenure, in the Land based on the inherent merit of the works of regenerate and unregenerate, it is theologically inaccurate to call that a Republication of the CoW.


----------

