John Murray and Covenant theology

[User20004000]

Murray was a gifted systematician. I believe he was attempting to resolve what he saw as tension in a Westminster's formulation of covenant theology (or tensions in a popular understanding of Westminster's formulation of covenant theology, if you prefer). If the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, operating upon the same principle as the New Covenant, then how could Lev 18:5, as quoted in Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 be proof of the CoW? He argued that Lev 18:5, in its original context, stated a condition of the Covenant of Grace (note that WCF 7.2 cites Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5, but not Lev 18:5). In Appendix B on Lev 18:5 in his Romans commentary, Murray says Rom 8:13 is the proper parallel to Lev 18:5. "Hence the words 'which if a man do, he shall live in them' (vs. 5) refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God." In line with this interpretation, as the head of a committee appointed in 1940 to revise the proof texts of the standards, Murray added Lev 18:5 to WCF 19.6 (Lev 18:5 was not cited anywhere in the original WCF).

It is specifically with this interpretation in mind that Murray argued against the concept of the Covenant of Works.



That is, Murray argued that Lev 18:5 expressed a concept of "equity" - people get what they are due. This equity applies within the covenant of grace and it also applied to Adam's created state prior to any offer of eternal life. If Adam obeyed, then Adam was "due" ongoing life as a matter of equity - he did not deserve to die. But, according to Murray, any reward of eternal life for that obedience was wholly gracious, not something due - not something of works. This, however, is not what WCF 7.1 teaches. 7.1 teaches that the offer of eternal life, by means of a covenant, was not due to Adam but was by God's voluntary condescension. But once that covenant was established, if Adam obeyed then he would be due eternal life. Here is how Nehemiah Coxe put it (the same point made by others above).

It is precisely the idea of "debt by compact" that Murray rejected. He said the reward of eternal life was "a promise of grace" not "of works" and thus he rejected not merely the terminology of Covenant, but the concept behind the terminology of the Covenant of Works.



That is very interesting to hear. If someone believes that that the WCF does teach that in the Covenant of Works God promised Adam eternal life as a just reward for his covenantal obedience, and sees Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 (cited by the Confession) as evidence of that, then they would believe Murray was, in fact, unconfessional on this point. Murray believed that Rom 10:5 stated a principle that applied to Adam prior to and apart from any covenantal arrangement or promise of eternal life. However, he believes the statement itself was used by Paul in an ad hominem argument (adopting the view of his opponents to show their error). In other words Paul adopted the Judaizers interpretation of "The man that doeth the righteousness of the law shall live thereby" in order to argue against it. Likewise in Gal 3:12. (Thus neither Rom 10:5 nor Gal 3:12 positively teach a covenant "of works" operative with Adam).



As noted above, he added Lev 18:5 as a proof text for 19.6(s)"The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof;" That is clearly a change in the Confession's doctrine.

In sum, I would make sure anyone interested carefully understand Murray's understanding of Lev 18:5 and how he integrated that into his system of theology and his interpretation of other relevant texts, including Rom 2:6. Murray's interpretation of Rom 2:6 was specifically appealed to by Gaffin during his testimony in the Kinnaird trial. Following Murray's example, in 2001 the OPC added Romans 2:6,7,13,16 as proof-texts for WLC90. On that basis John Kinnaird (a Shepherd-ite) was exonerated at the General Assembly. I do not want to endorse all that Klineans have written about Murray, but I think what I have shown above demonstrates there is a real issue to be considered, and not simply dismissed as a preference about words.

Here are two articles that go over the above in more detail:
Murray on Lev. 18:5 – Why Did John Murray Reject the Covenant of Works?

OPC Report on Republication – Background

I’m having a tough time tracking the progression of your argument. Can you use concise syllogistic reasoning to show how Murray opposed himself or the Confession?

 

[brandonadams]

I’m having a tough time tracking the progression of your argument. Can you use concise syllogistic reasoning to show how Murray opposed himself or the Confession?

I would recommend reading the link at the end, as it spells it out more step by step if you're having a hard time following the concise summary. If you want it in a syllogism:

P1 The doctrine of the Covenant of Works teaches that, according to the terms of the Covenant God made with Adam, if Adam perfectly obeyed, he was due eternal life as a matter of justice.

P2 Murray denied that if Adam perfectly obeyed he would be due eternal life as a matter of justice. Instead, any eternal life given to Adam would be an entirely gracious gift (not his due).

C Murray rejected the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

 

[User20004000]

I was acquainted with the links. I wanted to make sure I was following you given your appeal to Gaffin and Kinnaird, which doesn’t bring clarity to Murray. It only muddies the waters.

Murray found merit to be a misnomer given condescension and Adam’s creaturely duty to the Creator. In doing so, he denied strict justice and affirmed justice according to the terms of God’s administration of the Covenant of Life.

If anyone agrees that God was due Adam’s obedience simply because God is God, or denies that Adam could merit something before God condignly as opposed to in a pactum sense, then he agrees with Murray. This is not a denial of the Confession.

In the spirit of recommending others, Letham addresses Kline and Murray in his book on the theology of the Divines.

 

[Ed Walsh]

May God deliver us from the itching ears of innovation.

What a tremendous and vital statement. These are words that modern theologians should live by.
Thanks.

 

[greenbaggins]

Lane, where does the idea that Shepherd followed Murray come from in your opinion?

And what are your thoughts on the claim that Shepherd didn't really follow Murray but was really following Berkhouwer and influenced by his student Gaffin?

Shepherd claimed he was following John Murray. I think this was not a legitimate claim, myself, but that is what Shepherd claimed. He also quite literally followed Murray at WTS as professor of ST.

I think the primary influences of Shepherd were Klaas Schilder on the covenant (many would disagree with me on this, but I think Shepherd's doctrine of the covenant bears a close resemblance to Schilder's, though perhaps ONLY on that point). I do not think Gaffin is a primary influence on Shepherd. Although Gaffin defended Shepherd at first, he distanced himself from Shepherd over time. Gaffin never taught Shepherd's view of justification, to my knowledge. Can't speak to Berkouwer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some significant influence there.

 

[brandonadams]

Murray found merit to be a misnomer given condescension and Adam’s creaturely duty to the Creator. In doing so, he denied strict justice and affirmed justice according to the terms of God’s administration of the Covenant of Life.

If anyone agrees that God was due Adam’s obedience simply because God is God, or denies that Adam could merit something before God condignly as opposed to in a pactum sense, then he agrees with Murray. This is not a denial of the Confession.

Brother, I'm sorry, but you have missed Murray's point. Murray rejected "pactum" merit, not simply "strict justice." Murray did not affirm "justice according to the terms of God's administration of the Covenant of Life."

I was acquainted with the links. I wanted to make sure I was following you given your appeal to Gaffin and Kinnaird, which doesn’t bring clarity to Murray. It only muddies the waters.

I do not believe it muddies the waters at all. It provides the specific logical connection between the two. Psyche said she has only heard vague attempts to connect the two, so I mention that Gaffin specifically appeals to Murray's exegesis of Romans 2, which is tied directly to his exegesis of Lev 18:5, Gal 3:12, and Rom 10:5. Again, details and quotes provided in the second link. (Of course, Murray should be evaluated on his own terms, not simply by pointing to where others took his view. Murray was firm on sola fide, though perhaps not consistently).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

For those interested, here is a PDF of John Murray's Tyndale pamphlet on The Covenant of Grace.

 

[User20004000]

Brother, I'm sorry, but you have missed Murray's point. Murray rejected "pactum" merit, not simply "strict justice." Murray did not affirm "justice according to the terms of God's administration of the Covenant of Life."



I do not believe it muddies the waters at all. It provides the specific logical connection between the two. Psyche said she has only heard vague attempts to connect the two, so I mention that Gaffin specifically appeals to Murray's exegesis of Romans 2, which is tied directly to his exegesis of Lev 18:5, Gal 3:12, and Rom 10:5. Again, details and quotes provided in the second link. (Of course, Murray should be evaluated on his own terms, not simply by pointing to where others took his view. Murray was firm on sola fide, though perhaps not consistently).

It would seem that impasse is a common occurrence when you’ve debated this issue. Accordingly, my response isn’t something you haven’t heard before. “I suppose it’s clear by now that I don’t share your understanding of the WCF’s view.” And, “it is difficult to imagine a more grotesque distortion of the views of...the WCF.”

 

[User20004000]

I definitely am interested in this debate between Kline and Murray.

In part, this is because Murray was so instrumental in my wife and I accepting covenant baptism and becoming Presbyterian.

Let me offer this, not on Kline but his protégé.

Essentially, what some have done in very tight esoteric-circles is try to define merit only in terms of a sovereignly imposed covenant. Merit becomes covenant merit. Period. By doing so, the meaning of both condign merit and pactum merit, along with their relative distinctions, are removed from discussion. They’re disallowed, no longer to be considered as paradigms or concepts within which to interpret or define the actual meaning of covenant-merit within the context of the CoW. Once that is done, we may no longer consider whether God’s reward, as contemplated by compact, exceeds works performed. Nor may we entertain notions of strict merit (eg condign merit) vs pactum merit. Something seems fishy. What we are left with is covenant-merit, a term without meaning.

“The measure of merit is defined by the terms of the covenant, which itself is the only possible revelation and definition of divine justice.” (Irons)

We know what the reward is. What we don’t know is the sense in which it is meritorious! Indeed, the terms of the covenant define the reward. No doubt, they also define the measure of meritorious obedience required. However, neither of those things imply that we aren’t in a position to assess whether the offer is altogether gracious and disproportionate or not!

“Rather than an ontological state intellectually registered in the divine mind, merit is constituted only by fulfillment of the stipulations of a divinely-sanctioned covenant.” (Irons)

Wonderful, but in the context of covenant, is it intrinsically meritorious or is it meritorious in some non-intrinsic way?

That “neither merit nor justice exists apart from covenant” (Irons) is not very interesting in this regard. Does it mean that the merit or justice in view is neither proportional nor disproportional; neither strict nor gracious; neither intrinsic nor according to pactum? Surely we can do better. In fact, we have.

After some serious question begging, finally this:

“Once we have a proper definition of merit, it becomes clear that the arguments raised against the doctrine that Adam could have earned the reward of the covenant of works through a meritorious obedience are seen to be deprived of their force.” (Irons)

A proper definition of merit? How so?

What is the quality of that meritorious obedience, after all? Well, it seems like condign merit to me:

“No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works.” (Irons)

Let’s make no mistake about it. The covenant-merit being proffered is according to strict justice or else it’s vacuous. It’s also hiding behind covenantal nomenclature that would disallow any evaluation and the obvious merits of pactum merit.

 

[psycheives]

Shepherd claimed he was following John Murray. I think this was not a legitimate claim, myself, but that is what Shepherd claimed. He also quite literally followed Murray at WTS as professor of ST.

I think the primary influences of Shepherd were Klaas Schilder on the covenant (many would disagree with me on this, but I think Shepherd's doctrine of the covenant bears a close resemblance to Schilder's, though perhaps ONLY on that point). I do not think Gaffin is a primary influence on Shepherd. Although Gaffin defended Shepherd at first, he distanced himself from Shepherd over time. Gaffin never taught Shepherd's view of justification, to my knowledge. Can't speak to Berkouwer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some significant influence there.

I also agree with you and the PRCA view that Shepherd followed that Dutch CT view in the CRC and Schilder. PRCA has long warned Schilder's CT would lead here because historically it did time and time again; and now it has once again in Shepherd.

Just because some guy took over the ST job after Murray cannot of itself lead to anyone rightly blaming John Murray for the guy hired after him. Are any of us responsible for the poor work of the guy hired after us? That would be attrocious logic and scholarship. And just because Shepherd claimed to follow Murray, doesn't mean much considering he countered Murray on so much. Also, if my source is not mistaken, I read Shepherd studied under Berkhouwer not Murray (correct me if wrong). And according to Klineans, Gaffin studied under Shepherd and supposedly produced a controversial "FV justifying/defending" work.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If you take a look at John Murray's chapter on "The Adamic Administration" in volume 2 of his Collected Writings there is no question that he was much closer to the Westminster Standards than Norman Shepherd, the Federal Visionists, and other innovators. Granting that Professor Murray was not a Federal Visionist does not mean that he is beyond critique on this subject, and it is reasonable to conclude that his position on the Adamic arrangement contributed to the rise of something that he would no doubt have abhorred. Even the best of men, of which John Murray was undoubtedly one, can make mistakes that have serious repercussions further on down the line.

In the above-mentioned essay, Professor Murray argues that "the term [covenant of works] is not felicitous" and then goes on to say "It is not designated a covenant in Scripture. ... Besides, Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God's administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to redemptive design. Covenant in Scripture denotes the oath-bound confirmation of promise and involves a security which the Adamic economy did not bestow." (p. 49)

The bottom line is that whereas the Westminster Standards see the arrangement with Adam as a covenantal arrangement, John Murray did not regard it as a covenantal arrangement. Consequently, Professor Murray's position is contrary to that of the Westminster Standards. Claims that it was only a difference of terminology will not work because words mean something. For instance, if someone were to claim that they rejected the Confession's terminology in relation to justification by faith alone or with respect to the Holy Trinity, we would think twice before dismissing it as a mere matter of semantics. Instead, we would rightly be concerned that, even if the person's intentions were good, the form of sound words was being put in unnecessary danger. Remember that the words of the Westminster Standards were carefully chosen by a body of learned divines. For a minister in a confessional church to take it upon himself to improve the terminology of the standards is at best highly presumptuous.

Am I being too harsh on Professor Murray? No, the apostle James tells us that those who teach are to be judged more strictly. If that applies to ministers of the word in general, how much more to influential seminary professors? Besides, Professor Murray's position, for all his biblicism, is blatantly unscriptural. Paul tells us that there are two covenants in biblical history, one of which does not lead to the salvation of fallen sinners but only to bondage (Galatians 4:21-31). Paul's remark cannot be a reference to the covenant of grace, which does lead to the salvation of God's elect, but only to the broken covenant of works, which, subsequent to the Fall, is incapable of bestowing life.

While we can still appreciate Professor Murray's personal godliness, his gifts as a systematic theologian, and his unpopular positions on the regulative principle, images of Christ, psalmody, and the Sabbath, we must part company with him on this question and cling to scripture and the Westminster Standards.

 

[jwright82]

I appreciate the posts, very and well thought out. I remember, can't tell where, that Murray only considered the COW, or Adamic administration ( as he prefered) to be gracious because any and all covenants start with divine condescension (which is always gracious) to be gracious in the act of God but a works based covenant in its stipulations. Is this correct? If so that gets him "off the hook" for FV.