Interesting Upcoming Book on the Mosaic Covenant

Discussion in 'The Literary Forum' started by ChristianTrader, Nov 24, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    I agree.

    I think the problem with noting that the Law was a re-publication of the CoW is not that it cannot be understood in a proper sense but it can also lead to an improper understanding of the larger purpose of adding the Law.

    In Galatians 3, Paul asks an important question that I believe goes to the heart of the matter:

    If the Law is, indeed, a strict re-publication of the CoW then it would have to be said to be contrary to the promises of God. Paul notes that the Law is added within the structure of a CoG, given to those who were heirs to the promise and not to all men.

    This is bound to sound pejorative and I don't mean to be so but I think there is a sense in which it is the very error that Paul is railing against to view the Law as a "Do this and live", which is what the CoW is. That is to say that it is the Judaizers who have apprehended Moses as essentially saying "Do This and Live" when, in fact, Paul labors the point that if Moses was delivering this then he would be against the Abrahamic Promise and God Himself would have broken a Promise to Abraham.

    Thus, calling the Law a republication of the CoW goes too far. From a pedagogical standpoint, it communicates the wrong thing. Now, I realize that there is some subtlety here and that men need to be taken for what they're really communicating and not merely what the "headline" says. As far as it goes, I understand what some are saying by it and don't have a huge problem with it. But, as headlines go, the average man in the pew might miss the wider purpose of the Law if he merely views the Law as being contrary to the Promise when, in fact, Paul clearly states it is not contrary to the Promise but was given to fulfill the Promise.

    I obviously have respect for some Reformers in the past that used this language (though certainly not all did) but I think we can all agree how we've seen language mis-used in recent years and I really think it is not trivial where some have taken the republication of the CoW concept as something we ought to be concerned to qualify every time we use the term.

    My own view of this is that the Law was added for a gracious, pedagogical purpose where, even in the giving of the Law, the Gospel is telescoped. Certainly there were those that tried to interpret the Law as another CoW (i.e. the Pharisees) but we need to let God decide what the real purpose is and how the regenerate were to view the Law as preparing us longingly for the Messiah. It is the Gospel that the generation in the wilderness were said to reject.

    Finally, haven't we all seen those that take the explicit Gospel of the New Testament and turn it into a "republication of the CoW"? From the Be-Attitutdes to the Purpose Driven Life, the message of grace will always be twisted into a "Do This and Live". It's not the Law that kills but the sinful heart when it comes into contact with it (Romans 7:13-14). The CoG is ever twisted by the fallen soul unless God is gracious to grant life by it.
  2. CalvinandHodges

    CalvinandHodges Puritan Board Junior


    I share Pastor Greco's amazement concerning your statement that denying the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant leads one to a New Perspective or Romanist position on Justification? Where do you get that?

    The NP/Romanist position is that one can be Justified by the works of the Law. The NP position denies the active obedience of Christ and replaces it with the "works of faith" (whatever they mean by that). The Papist view is that one can be justified by works (taking the statements in James in its literal and non-contextual meaning).

    By saying that God has "republished the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic economy" you are implying, at least, that one can achieve everlasting life through the Works of the Law. I am absolutely sure that you do not believe such a thing. But, consider this:

    The preamble to the Law given at Sinai is clearly a statement of God's love and mercy towards His people. Now, after all of this love and mercy given to them, would it be fitting for God to "republish the Covenant of Works" to them at Sinai? Is it not more fitting for God to be handing them the Law in the Covenant of Grace as a rule of life? Are the children of God (for that is what He calls them) going to be placed under the yoke of bondage to the Covenant of Works again?

    Furthermore, if you are going to interpret the preamble to the Mosaic Law as a republication of the Covenant of Works, then where do you see the Covenant of Grace expressed in the Mosaic economy?

    You claim that Paul's point concerning Galatians 4:22ff (Hagar and Sarah - the two covenants) requires one to interpret the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works. Calvin goes through this extensively in his Commentary:

    The very point that Paul is making is that the Covenant of Works was not republished on Mount Sinai, but there are those who "make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery" (as Calvin puts it).

    The Law given at Sinai was not meant to be a republication of the Covenant of Works, but a gracious statement by God of taking a people to Himself, and giving them a rule of life for them to live. The Law, as it is a summary of the Covenant of Works, is not republished as a Covenant of Works at Sinai.

    The question is not whether the Law is a summary of the Covenant of Works given to Adam before the Fall. It is, whether or not the Mosaic Covenant is a republishing of the Covenant of Works?

    Kindly show me where, in the Mosaic Covenant, there is a republishing of the Covenant of works?


  3. JDKetterman

    JDKetterman Puritan Board Freshman


    I thought I already showed you in Galations 4. I don't believe the comment by Calvin actually contradicts what I am saying. Where I get this is from the FVs minimizing or rejection of the Law/Gospel hermeneutic that is held within the Reformed tradition. They use the same covenant "smashing" and say it's all about Grace (even Adam).

    You are right that I am implying that one can be right with God by keeping all of God's Law. Just as if Adam kept the covenant of works, he would receive blessings for keeping it I do believe one can earn eternal life if they keep the whole covenant of works. So you are wrong, I do actually believe that. Please keep in mind though that I am using the word "if." Paul uses the hypothetical when one being justified by the works of the Law in Romans 2.

    As far as the preamble of the decalogue, it is not in my place to say what is and what is not fitting. It is true that God redeems Israel, but how could Israel break this covenant? If they don't keep the terms of this covenant, what happens to them? Let me be clear by saying that I don't believe that Israel could earn their salvation, but it did serve a purpose before the Messiah came. What we disagree with is what that purpose was.

    In contrast with Abraham, God was the one who took on the terms of the covenant. He promised to Abraham that he would build Him a great nation. Instead of making Abraham walk between the animal carcasses, but He takes it on Himself the terms of the covenant.

    Paul is not actually contrasting principles, but contrasting two covenants. One made with Abraham and one made with Moses. The Law, not what people think of the Law, is of the slave woman.
  4. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    Just skimming this thread it seems to me that a key distinction is being missed in the discussion. It looks to me as if everyone here is speaking of republication as being related to the individual in Israel, and then getting worked up over its implications for soteriology.

    From what I was taught regarding republication during my time at WSCAL, and from what I read on the issue in both Witsius and Turretin, the republication doctrine is discussing the law as given to Israel on a national level, and as a national covenant. It has to do with Israel as a national entity, and not so much the individual Israelite.

    So then, it makes perfect sense to say that, as was warned by Moses in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy, when Israel as a nation failed to keep their end of the covenant, they received the curses of the covenant, and eventually lost the promise land. What this then allows us to do is to show how this typology of Israel's faithlessness to the republished CoW pointed toward the necessary work and faithfulness of the anti-typical Christ for his people, and in the securing of the heavenly promised land. It is clear in the servant songs of Isaiah that Christ takes upon himself the role of the servant Israel in a corporate manner, as well as fulfilling the more personal servant songs of the individual servant (there is both an individual and corporate aspect to the servant in that section of Isaiah).

    Republication can be a difficult concept for some to get their mind around when they haven't had opportunity to discuss the theology behind it, and the various passages which support it. Having heard both lectures regarding it, and read older reformed theologians who support it, I have no worry about it, and do not see it being used to undermine any important point of soteriology. Actually, after having come to understand it, I felt that the history of Israel made a lot more sense to me, and that preaching Christ from the OT had just become that much more rich.

    I would recommend that any who are concerned about it pick up the book when it comes out, read through it, and then get back with your arguments here if there are still questions that remain. I have seen a number of reformed folk in the past get really worked up over republication, and I think it is because they misunderstand it. For the life of me, I have never been able to see what the big deal is, and part of that is because I think that those who take issue with it are taking issue with something that it is not.

    Read Witsius, read Turretin; Horton writes some on this in his God of Promise, and it is referenced also (if memory serves) in the Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry volume as well. I look forward to picking up the new work when it comes out, and brushing up on the doctrine a bit. I really do think that it is a beneficial aspect of covenant theology in relationship to the theocracy. Try it, and tell me what you think after you've read it!
  5. TsonMariytho

    TsonMariytho Puritan Board Freshman

    (I'm a little new to this subject, but I've been interested in it for a long time and certainly appreciate what folks have posted above.)

    Would those who argue for republication say that every time God asserts or explains a moral principle in his Word, the Covenant of Works is being presented anew, or at least in clearer focus to the sinner's view?

    E.g. even in the Abrahamic Covenant, "walk before me and be blameless" and in the New Testament "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" -- passages we would normally associate with the CoG?

    1. If so, that makes some sense to me. An unbeliever can appreciate Jesus' commentary on the Law that hating your brother is a violation of the command against murder. But until such a one hears and believes the gospel, he is not included in the CoG, and as such is under judgment for his failure to keep the Law. Therefore, Jesus' words seem to have application under the CoW as far as that sinner is concerned, at that point in time.

    2. If not, then what was it that was special about the Mosaic Law that makes it a republication, that is not true of Jesus' exposition of the Law?

    Answering my own question above, I guess what some people are looking for is a restatement of an offer of earning salvation by merit. But if that principle is already established, why does it need to be said again? If (as everyone agrees) the CoW continues in full force through history, why can't we take any expression of the Law of God as speaking to two audiences -- those who trust in Yahweh Saves (CoG, Matt 1:21), versus those who do not "combine [the message] with faith" (arguably CoW, Heb 4:2+Gal 4:25)?

    -----Added 12/12/2008 at 07:32:35 EST-----

    Another note -- I asked "why does it need to be said again". An additional reason it doesn't need to be said is that nobody actually has opportunity to earn eternal life that way. Further clarification of the Law has two realistic remaining functions in the CoW -- condemning sinners further, and serving as a schoolmaster to drive to Christ (then swapping over to CoG, I suppose).
  6. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    This is a great example of what I was getting at by my above statements (not to pick on you in particular for posting this). It does not have to do with individual soteriological issues, but theocratic, national issues - i.e. the land covenant. Israel transgressed the stipulations of the covenant as given in the book of Deuteronomy, and was then punished and ejected from the land as a nation. It is typological, and it is national.

    That being said, most of the questions being asked above can be seen to be asking the wrong question. It was not about individual salvation by merit, it was about the theocracy's obedience to a national covenant, which was a demonstration of typological realities. As soon as questions begin to be asked about individuals, the wrong questions are being asked (unless, of course, the individual in question is Christ).
  7. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member


    The Covenant of Works is not a theocratic covenant, but an individualistic, salvation covenant with Adam in the garden. The Mosaic Covenant may be as you describe, but that would not make it a republication of the CoW. You can talk about dry water, but that does not make it exist.
  8. Prufrock

    Prufrock Arbitrary Moderation

    Just a thought from reading this thread: I'm pretty sure almost everyone who has commented has a different idea of what "Republication" means. This might be causing mass confusion.
  9. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior


    That may be what is causing some of the confusion.

    I believe that either Witsius or Turretin (if not both) spoke of it as being a form of a republication of the Covenant of Works, but that on a national level. Maybe they caused confusion in appropriating that terminology, but I found it helpful myself. I understand that in common Reformed theological discussion that particular covenant is used in personal/soteriological categories, and not in a national/promissory manner, but I think that they allowed for this because they were using it to describe a typological relationship that illustrated some profound theological truths.


    I think you hit the nail on the head, which I why I would like to read this book and see if it does a better job of describing the terms and issues for the broader public than can be done here, and gets to the heart of the matter in a way that clarifies things and satisfies the majority of theological inquirers. Maybe there will still be disagreement, but hopefully it will then be because of a disagreement with the fundamental thesis, and not because the we are all confused regarding terms and concepts. Like I said, I'm looking forward to it! I actually got pretty severely raked over the coals in private during a seminary internship after having made mention of this in a class that I was teaching. I'd like to think that this could lead to my vindication :lol:
  10. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    I still would like to reinforce the contribution of Meredith Kline for this very interesting debate.

    Kline maintaining the continuum on Redemptive History and a covenantal hermeneutics

    on the antithesis between law and grace – yet, instead of a republication per se

    Kline defends that a Foedus Legale and a Foedus Gratiae is even seen present together

    in Exodus 19-24, one for the Nation of Israel and the other for Individual Salvation.

    Meredith Kline, always highly defending the Covenant of Works

    (even against a certain revisionism of John Murray) extends it’s application beyond the Adamic Federal Head

    to a single other particular situation, the nation of Israel as a Typology of the Kingdom.

    Of course, in Kline, the Kingdom is a very important doctrine to «balance with the Covenants», so to speak.

    Mho and please correct me if I’m wrong here:

    The understanding in Federal Theology may have often been detrimental of the

    «appropriate perception or formulation» of the Kingdom and tough, eventually, inconsistent

    with a correct exegesis of the Law. Take the Gospel of Mathew, for instance.

    Therefore bringing an unnecessary problematic to the right place of the Law in / with the Covenant of Grace.

    In my humble opinion as that framework was been forgotten, a weakening in the necessary tension

    between Law and Grace, took place in Reformed thought.

    An example is how Murray, cutting the relation of the Adamic administration with the Mosaic law,

    and merging the Mosaic into the Abrahamic Covenant, brought him to understate the Covenant of Works.

    Of course already with Barth(ians), later Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd,...and now the Federal Vision(aries),

    that weakness has gained a dangerous momentum.

    Realizing the correct place of the Kingdom Typology in the Covenants, also clarifies how

    Moses, being a type of the second Adam, Christ, constitutes a Federal Head for the Nation of Israel.

    and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

    1 Corinthians10:2

    emphasis mine

    So, by inference of two Adams, two covenants of works, as Kline states it,

    the economy (the translation of oikonomia as dispensation would surely appeal more to Kline's critics : )

    of the Mosaic Law is a Covenant of Works, as far as it applies to the Nation.

    Simultaneously in Redemptive History, the Covenant of Grace continues, as far as individual salvation is concerned.

    If one begins with grace, on the pretense of avoiding "legalism" then one will not rightly understand grace

    Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635, Leeuwarden - 1711, Rotterdam)


    -----Added 12/13/2008 at 03:36:17 EST-----

    to those who would like to read Meredith Kline (1922-2007)

    this site provides several articles


    and link below to download the PDF of the complete book

    Meredith G. Kline – Kingdom Prologue . Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal World View.

    Two Age Press
    418 pages.


    -----Added 12/13/2008 at 03:56:09 EST-----

    On the same year of 2007 also departed

    Herman Ridderbos (1909, Oosterend – 2007, Kampen, the Netherlands)

    author of the very central book on: quote

    how closely are related the thought of the Covenant and that of the coming of the

    Kingdom of God, and also how completely God carries through His plan of salvation

    in the revelation of His Kingdom.

    page 23 of

    The Coming of the Kingdom

    588 pages
    P & R Publishing
    ISBN: 9780875524085

    synopsis below

    The Coming of the Kingdom :: Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) :: 20th Century Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians

    Last edited: Dec 13, 2008
  11. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    You might have skimmed past where I noted that I respect some of those who call the Mosaic Covenant a republication of the CoW. My objection to the term is not to quibble over terms because I know what some mean by it. I do, however, think that labels have pedagogical consequences and I believe that some people get the impression that the Law (as delivered by Moses) is against the Promise (contra Paul himself). I also believe that former OPC minister, Lee Irons, represents the worst of where this line of thinking can lead.

    I don't claim to be a Scholar and I'm still learning but I appreciate Calvin's discussion on the Law where he demonstrates that the principal and intended purpose of the Law is in its 3rd use. I obviously believe that the righteousness that attains to God cannot be found in the obedience to the Law but that line of thinking is endemic to the unregenerate as Paul points out and Calvin eloquently elaborates.

    I believe the Law's true intent is to reveal the righteousness of God. The reaction to this righteousness is deterimed by what God has done to you in regeneration. It is the difference of reaction between a son and an enemy. Calling it a republication of the CoW presents the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was delivered to enemies while David represents the song of the redeemed heart that does not hate the righteousness therein but loves it.

    Finally, after reading Calvin recently, I'm interested to read how unabashedly he is willing to note that the Law actually sanctifies the redeemed man. I hear, far too often, that the Law can do nothing but condemn from those who hold to this paradigm. Perhaps that's not what was intended by those who first coined this phrase but some of the most prominent proponents today effectively negate the third use altogether and its role in training the conscience.

    As I said, I respect those who have used the term but I believe the term itself has given rise to ideas that are foreign to Reformed Theology and its proper placement of the Law. I actually find myself wondering whether some think that the WLC's exposition of the Ten Commandments has any validity given the Law/Gospel distinction that is articulated.
  12. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    Hopefully, we all agree that the COW and the COG go forth in the flow of Redemptive History.

    While, being myself in favour of the Klinean interpretation of the Mosaic Law as a

    Kingdom Typological expression of the prelapsarian Covenant of Works, celebrated with Adam.

    I must urge us all, to defend the right hermeneutic of Hosea 6:7

    But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant.

    Not an easy task, as it’s under several fires, even by erroneous translations (KJV included) of «man» or «men»

    Well, concerning the Mosaic Law being a Republication of the COW, subscribed by Fesko, VanDrunen et al

    Sproul seems to find it the right figure, carrying no antagonism between OT and NT

    and he grounds himself heavily on both Scripture and Herman Witsius.

    R. C. Sproul – link below

    The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

    Reformation Theology: The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

    But even then, Sproul starts in a kind of vague defensive terminology using at first the word Repetition

    and stating, quote: seems to be a sort of republication of the covenant of works. Of course it is not identical

    emphasis mine

    So Pastor Greco, it would be very useful if you could please develop further on Fisher

    and how you see this problematic of the Mosaic Law as a Republication of the COW

    Edward Fisher - THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY - 1782

    link below to the complete work online

    The Marrow of Modern Divnity

    After my last post I must add, in due justice, that the contribution of John Murray

    for the doctrine of double Imputation, on Romans 5 and consequently to Covenant Theology, is priceless.

    And I would say, not less to the vital presence of the Covenant of Works

    in the proper understanding of the Ordo Salutis.

    So definitely we must hold firm to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness in Justification Sola Fide.

    Because, Justification (the article by which the Church stands or falls, as Luther called it)

    faces a double threat, as in this particular NPP and FV

    are in alliance against Sound and Historic Reformed Doctrine.

    So in this times of controversy, when Federal Vision(aries) unworthily

    have tried to take hold of the legacy of John Murray, to suit their own twisted agenda,

    it seems truly providential, that Murray was the

    privileged receptor of the renowned deathbed telegram:

    I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.

    John Gresham Machen

    Last edited: Dec 14, 2008
  13. RTaron

    RTaron The Grandpa (Affectionately Called)

    Good point Rich. I share your other points below regarding the general drift that this doctrine can take a church.

    I believe proponents of this doctrine actually take away the Holiness and righteousness of God by inventing a new kind of covenant of works where you are not judged by a perfect perpetual obedience to God's commandments. They maintain that Israel was given the land due to their obedience to the Sinai Covenant which was a republication of the CoW. If you lack perfect and perpetual obedience, then you lack a covenant of works. The Scripture admits no in between stage between works and grace.

    I agree, thanks, Rich
  14. nicnap

    nicnap Puritan Board Post-Graduate

  15. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    Well I don’t think that the «expression» of the COW in the Decalogue, in sight of Israel’s recurrent disobedience,

    would either deny that «replication» of the COW, or bring an Antinomian compromise to it.

    Actually there is that requirement of a perfect and permanent obedience, as you well state,

    both by the COW and by its particular «representation» on the Mosaic Law.

    For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all James 2:10 NKJV

    In fact the risk is not an antinomian, but a legalistic, in the danger of the fallen individual

    seeking to be justified through an hopeless attempt to keep all the Mosaic Law.

    Enough to say, being the epistle to the Galatians a Scripture who gives us such a clear light on this.

    So mainly the question we are dealing with is:

    What purpose then does the law serve? Galatians 3:19 NKJV

    Here is the antithesis between the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic Covenants

    or the Covenant of Promise and the Covenant of Works and its requirement to perfect obedience.

    So I believe both always coexist, one for the Nation and the other for Individual Salvation.

    (as in fact coexist, the COW for individual reprobation of the unbeliever, thus being outside the COG)

    The Mosaic Covenant, as a Suzerainty Treaty, between God and the Nation,

    with Moses as its Mediator and its Federal Head, certainly requires no less than perfect obedience.

    So no incoherence there of being also a «republication» of the COW.

    When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice:

    Everything the LORD has said we will do. Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.(…)

    Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, This is the Blood of the Covenant

    that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.

    Exodus 24:3-8 KJV

    emphasis mine

    As for the Promise, as the fulfilment of that requirement by imputed righteousness

    is for the Individual salvation under the Covenant of Grace

    just as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

    Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

    Galatians 3:6 NKJV

    Chapter 2: Sinai and Zion: a Tale of Two Covenants

    From the 3rd volume of the Tetralogy of Michael S. Horton:

    Covenant and Salvation, Union with Christ

    Westminster John Knox Press 2007
    ISBN: 0664231632

    has a very thorough treatment of this matter.

    Last edited: Dec 14, 2008
  16. RTaron

    RTaron The Grandpa (Affectionately Called)

    Cesar, thanks for responding. I read and re-read your post, but I can't pick up on your meaning. Sorry, maybe a language barrier. or just my thick head.

    What do your mean by Covenant of Works? Is there any mercy?
  17. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    Hi Rick

    Thank you for bearing with me and I apologize if I was not clear.

    The question on the thread has been if the Mosaic Law is a republication of

    the Covenant of Works, celebrated with prelapsarian Adam.

    R C Sproul affirms it is, and answers your question concerning mercy, this he makes both appealing

    to Herman Witsius on the Decalogue, as a repetition of the Covenant of Works

    and also clarifying Witisus rather strict explanation.

    quote from

    The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

    R. C. Sproul

    A Republication of Works to point to Christ: Thus far it would seem that Witsius might hold to a

    pure covenant of works, absent of any grace, yet this is also not his view.

    He states that this republication of the covenant of works

    was not repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with Israelites,

    in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation.

    Reformation Theology: The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?

    emphasis mine

    For the Israelites they should seek for mercy, justification and salvation in the Grace of God,

    through faith - as present in the Abrahamic Covenant - an expression of the

    Covenant of Grace in the flow of Redemptive History.

    Concerning the Covenant of Works (WCF VII 1,2) celebrated with Adam

    also called Covenant of Life (Larger Cathechism question 20)

    upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, as you had mentioned

    attached is a PDF with the complete

    Chapter II Of the Contracting Parties in the Covenant of Works

    from Herman Witsius - the Economy of the Covenants between God and Man.

    Hardcover: 959 pages
    Publisher: P & R Publishing
    ISBN 0875528708

    also quite useful as a reading guide is

    An Analysis of Herman Witsius's "The Economy of the Covenants"

    Patrick Ramsey & Joel R. Beeke

    Publisher: Mentor Books
    ISBN: 9781892777225

    Hoping this was helpful

    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
  18. discipulo

    discipulo Puritan Board Junior

    Thank you for bring back a greater view, this debate has been developing, for its own reasons,

    in a necessary narrow frame. But it’s always important to keep in mind the Whole Counsel of God.

    With due respect, I must say, and speaking for myself, I have been stating exactly the opposite,

    both on soteriology vs typology as its purpose, and individual vs nation as its object.

    In my humble opinion the representation or republication of the COW in the Mosaic Law is not meant

    to the Individual, but to the Nation as a Typology of the Kingdom.

    as far as I can read it from the great depth of Meredith Kline.

    But affirming a republication of the COW in the Mosaic Law concerning the Nation

    is not the same thing to say that the Law doesn’t apply in a multi fold way to the individual.

    The purpose of God’s Law for the individual is crystal clear in Scripture, from cover to cover.

    And Witsius, also develops on that purpose for many pages,

    while he clearly stands for a republication of the COW.

    please see below scanned image attached of Chapter IV - on the Decalogue pages 183, 184 emphasis mine

    Well, I found very interesting and quite clarifying the article on this matter

    by Dr. Scott Clark

    So I only leave some paragraphs, encouraging the complete reading on Heidelblog:


    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.


    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.


    Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works.

    It’s a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works.

    R. Scott Clark

    Republication of the Covenant of Works

    Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) « Heidelblog

    Republication of the Covenant of Works (2) « Heidelblog

    Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (3) « Heidelblog

    Last edited: Dec 15, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page