Mosaic Covenant = Republication of Cov't of Works?

[Casey]

How exactly?

For what it's worth, not that I know anything, here is the footnote I mentioned earlier. All these guys were "unconfessional"?

Dr. Clark, I went to one of your conferences in IL a few months back. The burden of your lectures was that "Reformed" is objectively defined by the Confessions (not by Reformed theologians per se; and this aspect of your lectures I heartily agree with you about). I quoted the Confession above where it states rather clearly that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG, and nowhere in the Confession (and I'm pretty sure the Catechisms, too) does it refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoWs. So, I perfectly understand WrittenFromUtopia's question -- in fact, that's why I started the thread. And I still haven't gotten an answer: How can such a view be considered confessional in the light of the quotation from the Confession in the OP?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

RSC already said this, but you can't read WCF7 as if it isn't a part of the same document as WCF19. The chapters must be harmoniously reckoned, or you might as well toss the whole thing in the rubbish.

Simply put, the WHOLE Mosaic adminstration is nothing but the Covenant of Grace under a specific, typologically heavy form. But the moral law, given what it is essentially, is certainly expressive of the original Covenant of Works. It is in that capacity that Paul can point to it as CURSE, not GRACE. The Israelite people, in particular the mass of non-elect unbelievers, swore to this covenant not as Grace, but as Law. They swear to something they can't accomplish. Least of all can they keep the sacrificial portion!

Moses isn't THE CoW. It's not. Reformed men shouldn't call it so. But any time you see God's commands formally published like that, a summary of his whole will--what is that but a reminder of the original CoW that every man starts out under, and under a curse no less? Jesus went under the CURSE of the LAW. Which LAW? Every expression of the Covenant of Works, that's what, including those reflections of it found in the Mosaic administration. He performed it all perfectly, he obeyed the LAW (of Moses) and in so doing he fulfilled the CoW for us! And then he DIED for us, who hadn't kept the CoW (whether before, during, or after Moses' Law)!

Dispensationalists are WRONG, to assert that Moses IS a works-covenant. And it is just as wrong to go in the opposite direction, and claim that faithfully observing the LAW--as far as possible in deed, and further in ceremonies typifying GRACE--in other words, neo-nomianism: claiming this is grace. No, Moses is CoG, because it points to Christ. Do every single thing the Law says, down to the hems of your garments, and the sacrificial oblations exactly; even add none of the Pharisees legalisms, and you will be none the more inside the spiritual CoG if ye have not faith! That is because the person living like that is treating the Law like a CoW! Taking its FORM, and making that the essence.

People do the same thing today! They take God's will (OT or NT or combo) as "Law", and add to it NT church ritual and observances for GRACE, and say "THAT, THERE, THAT is the Covenant of Grace." And in so doing they miss the CoG entirely. It is harder to do TODAY, because the types and shadows THEN functioned like that veil over Moses face. But the fact that people still do it today shows the power and depths of sin.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Reply on the Heidelblog

Reply here (that's in the indicative not imperative mood!)

rsc

Dr. Clark, I went to one of your conferences in IL a few months back. The burden of your lectures was that "Reformed" is objectively defined by the Confessions (not by Reformed theologians per se; and this aspect of your lectures I heartily agree with you about). I quoted the Confession above where it states rather clearly that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG, and nowhere in the Confession (and I'm pretty sure the Catechisms, too) does it refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoWs. So, I perfectly understand WrittenFromUtopia's question -- in fact, that's why I started the thread. And I still haven't gotten an answer: How can such a view be considered confessional in the light of the quotation from the Confession in the OP?

 

[Casey]

Reply here (that's in the indicative not imperative mood!)

rsc

Thank you for the long response! -- I look forward to reading it.

 

[VanVos]

Kline is very helpfully here. I agree with Kline that the Mosaic Covenant was a national typological republication of the Covenant of Works that overlaid the underlying substratum of the Covenant of Grace in order to be a school master to bring us to Christ i.e. to make His work legible. Thus making the Law-Gospel distinction clearly discernable within the one unified Covenant of Grace

VanVos

 

[MW]

There is a danger in taking men's thoughts about a subject and running with them in a direction the men never dreamed of.

If it is understood that the Mosaic mediated covenant is typological, then there is nothing amiss with the idea that it did not perfectly reflect the Antitype. Every type must of necessity fall short of the ideal it represents, otherwise the Antitype would be redundant. Where the law of Moses falls short of the grace of Jesus Christ, one may speak of it in antithetical terms, as we read in John 1:17. This antithesis is stressed by the apostle Paul in response to Jewish dependence upon the law of Moses and rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He tells them that Moses looked beyond himself and testified of the righteousness of faith.

Puritan divines have looked at the antithetical gap as described by Paul and have concluded that it must be understood in terms of an inherent difference in law and grace as to the way of salvation. One is saved either by personal law-keeping or by the law-keeping of Another. As the covenant of works represented a way in which man might arrive at blessedness through personal obedience, it was legitimate for these divines to call salvation by personal law-keeping an administration of the covenant of works in contrast to the covenant of grace which stresses the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

When the Puritan idea of a republication of the covenant of works is understood in this context, it can prove helpful, because it clearly delineates law and grace in terms of type and antitype. But when it takes on a life of its own and becomes a hermeneutical crux, it obscures the unified message of Scripture. The fact is, righteousness by works is presented by both Moses and Paul as hypothetical, not real. If it is hypothetical, it is obvious that there was no actual administration of the covenant of works after the fall. God does not enter into hypothetical covenants with people. Hence the idea that the covenant of works was actually republished is untenable. The element of works-righteousness was presented to the people's view to highlight that salvation was all of grace, but they were never taught to seek salvation by their own obedience.

Given this conclusion, Meredith Kline's idea of a national covenant of works is to be rejected. This idea requires the biblical exegete to move from the hypothetical to the real. To suppose that there was a national covenant of works one must conclude that God actually required law-obedience of Israel as a means to merit His blessings. This contradicts the plain message of the Pentateuch, which always insists that Israel owed its existence and blessedness to the chesed of YHWH. It also contradicts the apostle Paul's treatment of the faithfulness of God to His covenant promises in Rom. 9-11, where he explicitly teaches that the promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the election of grace.

 

[Archlute]

Rev. Winzer,

If your thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant are true, what do we make of the stated blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience on a national level found in Deuteronomy, and the subsequent outworking of especially the curses as found in Joshua-Judges? There is a direct correlation to the judgment upon Israel as a nation in those books, and the violations of the covenant expounded in Deuteronomy. This has nothing to do with works righteousness for individual salvation, but rather has to do with the nation's welfare as a whole. I think that Kline's view helps to make much sense of that overarching issue. As well, it is not original to Kline, as noted in earlier posts by myself and Dr. Clark.

I do not think that we can say that just because an idea is expanded upon by later generations of theologians that it is inherently dangerous. That is exactly what has happened in the history of Doctrine. Ideas regarding the teaching of Scripture begin to formulate, often in response to some error, and then are built upon by later men who have had time to ponder the issue.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer,

If your thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant are true, what do we make of the stated blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience on a national level found in Deuteronomy, and the subsequent outworking of especially the curses as found in Joshua-Judges? There is a direct correlation to the judgment upon Israel as a nation in those books, and the violations of the covenant expounded in Deuteronomy. This has nothing to do with works righteousness for individual salvation, but rather has to do with the nation's welfare as a whole. I think that Kline's view helps to make much sense of that overarching issue. As well, it is not original to Kline, as noted in earlier posts by myself and Dr. Clark.

Archlute, on the level of type, Israel were never going to obey and be blessed. Even when they entered into the land through Joshua, they did not enter into rest, Heb. 4. Type by its very nature is hypothetical. If there were a real possibility of obtaining the goal, the Antitype would be unnecessary.

I hope you will not make the sanctions of the covenant a reason for concluding this must have been a covenant of works. Sanctions exist under the full administration of the covenant of grace in the New Testament. He that believeth not is damned is a sanction of the covenant. The warning passages of the book of Hebrews are sanctions.

Concerning your dichotomy between the individual Israelite and the nation as a whole, Rom. 9-11 indicates that the promises will be fulfilled to Israel as a whole by means of the salvation of the individuals who belong to the election of grace. Kline's idea of a failed covenant of works to national Israel inherently contradicts this inspired commentary on the Old Testament. Kline says the word of God has taken none effect. The Holy Spirit says the word of God has not taken none effect.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Israel proves it cannot keep the covenant at the foot of Mt. Sinai! It never kept the covenant, it couldn't keep the covenant. As both Moses and Joshua attest, Israel cannot keep the law they vow to--read the testimonies of both leaders against the nation at the end of both their lives. "For thy mercy's sake we are not consumed!" (Lam. 3:22)

There is no staying in covenant by anything other than by faith, which is why (as RSC states) the whole thing is chiefly a 1500-year sermon illustration. And Matthew is certainly correct to point out that this puts the whole matter into something of a hypothetical. The true, believing Israelites (how many soever there were) surely would say: "We know we are bound to swear to keep this law that we cannot keep. Only by the grace of God are we preserved, in order to renew this covenant."

Even in the people's punctillious observance of ceremonies, the LORD of the Covenant was offended: "My soul hates them!" (Is. 1:14 and the whole passage). But the ceremonies were for the inevitable breaking of the Law! So all the people had to do was follow them, and all would be well? Nonsense. Without faith they were all nothing to purpose. And the nation was destroyed for its wholesale unbelief.

Those entering the Mosaic Covenant as if it were a covenant of works, taking the regulatory FORM of the Covenant for its substance--these were doomed, doomed to fail and to perish and to plunge the nation (since the main did exactly this over many generations) into ruination. For they would certainly be judged on the basis of those externals, on a CoW basis.

In the same way, those in the church today, who trust in their works, in their baptism, in their Lord's Supper taking, in their corporate worship attendance, Sabbath observance, you name it! these people are doomed under their pretence of law-keeping. There simply is no comparable CODE for them to appeal to anymore, the massive externality of the Old Covenant having disappeared. But, the irony is (of course) that doesn't stop people from having new codes, even the simplest--like "Love's Law," or the "Two Great Commands." Don't we know people who expect to be judged on those bases in the end? Or on their attendance to NC sacraments and ordinances, all the while crying out "we're under grace, not Law!"


(What I've stated here, in defense of "republication", should be read all together with my previous posts. Men like Boston, whose excerpt I linked to above, represent my view. And I do not defend Kline, apart from defending the terminology. And I really think Dr. Clark and Rev. Winzer are speaking very nearly the same thing, because Clark doesn't defend Kline's views to a "T" either.)

 

[Irishcat922]

Read this it helped me understand the issue much better. Meredith Kline suggested reading on the issue.

Amazon.com: Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Books: Mark Karlberg

 

[ChristianTrader]

Read this it helped me understand the issue much better. Meredith Kline suggested reading on the issue.

http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Reformed-Perspective-Karlberg/dp/1579103154

Free PDF version of same book.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051230152504/www.twoagepress.org/Karlberg.pdf

 

[MW]

In the same way, those in the church today...

This is the critical observation and shows the pastoral implications of understanding the issue correctly. The words "in the same way" demonstrate the unity of Israel and the church. It is one covenant of grace. Any differences must be attributed to diversity in administration. The Gospel, like the Law, preaches grace. The Gospel, unlike the Law, preaches a grace that has come into human history through the incarnation of Jesus Christ; whereas the Law always looked forward to the coming of that grace and presented it to the people typically.

At the end of the day, any acknowledgment of a publication of the covenant of works under the Mosaic administration requires us to conclude that the same publication is made in the Gospel -- which is what we discover in Rom. 5. Blessings!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Matthew,
I virtually concur with the above sum. The Mosaic administration simply expressed that CoW aspect so "up front" and massively that the regulations (so many, so detailed) seemed to be the substance to so many observers. I think the Reformed, like Boston, speaking of "republication" mean exactly this, and no more. And yet, despite the clarity of the gospel today, many modern observers make exactly the same errors of Israel, with much less.

Yes, we still have Law and Gospel today.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Revs. Buchananan and Winzer: Wow!

Thank you so much for those additions since last night. I came to work this morning and went into a marathon session of meetings that lasted from 0800-1300. The above was very edifying to me. I really wish many could get that last short post by Bruce into their bloodstream today.

 

[ChristianTrader]

(What I've stated here, in defense of "republication", should be read all together with my previous posts. Men like Boston, whose excerpt I linked to above, represent my view. And I do not defend Kline, apart from defending the terminology. And I really think Dr. Clark and Rev. Winzer are speaking very nearly the same thing, because Clark doesn't defend Kline's views to a "T" either.)

What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?

CT

 

[MW]

What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?

Psalms singers will need to look for new hymns, because all the references to Israel are to a covenant of works which believers are not under. Kline's theory posits a sharp disjunction which cannot be sustained within the reformed concept of the unity of Israel and the church.

 

[Robin]

Psalms singers will need to look for new hymns, because all the references to Israel are to a covenant of works which believers are not under. Kline's theory posits a sharp disjunction which cannot be sustained within the reformed concept of the unity of Israel and the church.

.....Unless, the hymns refer to the works of the TRUE "Israel of God" -- Jesus Christ.

Is the Christian saved by works? (trick question)

YES.

The Christian is saved by the works of Jesus Christ.

Christ's law keeping is imputed to us as we are IN Christ. Related to the Psalms, the "righteous" are those elect in Christ. (Kline's theory is maintained.)

With due respect,

Robin

 

[Robin]

What are the consequences of accepting Kline's view here?
CT

The benefits of Kline's work help in understanding the distinctions of the different covenants and the importance of keeping them clear. The peril of smudging them together results in things like the Federal Vision.

r.

 

[MW]

Unless, the hymns refer to the works of the TRUE "Israel of God" -- Jesus Christ.

Ps. 130:8, "And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Israel cannot refer to Jesus Christ. In the Psalms, David is the type of Christ, and Israel is the church. As Ps. 136 testifies over and again, Israel owes its existence and blessedness to the covenant fidelity of YHWH, not to her own works of obedience.

The fact that the Old Testament Scriptures have to be bent every which way to facilitate Kline's theory demonstrates its error.

 

[turmeric]

The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.

I know that's not Scripture, but it's handy.

 

[Robin]

Ps. 130:8, "And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Israel cannot refer to Jesus Christ. In the Psalms, David is the type of Christ, and Israel is the church. As Ps. 136 testifies over and again, Israel owes its existence and blessedness to the covenant fidelity of YHWH, not to her own works of obedience.

The fact that the Old Testament Scriptures have to be bent every which way to facilitate Kline's theory demonstrates its error.

Rev. Winzer...

Yes, distinctions need to be carefully made. But it can mean BOTH. Afterall, God the Father redeemed Christ from the grave and our iniquities he carried. Remember, Jesus "became sin, who knew no sin?" Btw, Israel was saved the same way we are: through Christ.

How can it be said "the Lord said to My Lord..." if there isn't overlap in David's typology and Christ's identities? What about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah - who is Israel? Wasn't it Jesus Christ who slew the unbelieving Israelites in the desert (Jude 5?) How can Jesus be Israel and also exact judgment on national Israel?

It's not about Kline, it's about explaining the fascinating language in the OT where God appears to be talking to himself (in Trinity fashion). Christ is everywhere in the OT. Luke 24 has Jesus teaching the Emmaus disciples the entire OT was about Him.

Yes, there are real historic moments that mattered to real people in the OT. There are also precise types and shadows of God's eschatological "breaking into" human history to act out his decrees that overlay or undergird the events.

It's not either, or....it is both, and.

Calvin knew these points pretty well. (Forget Kline.)


r.

 

[AV1611]

There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion.

Could you expand upon this?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

See the Heidelblog entry on this.

rsc

Could you expand upon this?

 

[AV1611]

See the Heidelblog entry on this.

rsc

(1) I take it that you accept the Mosaic Covenant was a CoW?
(2) Did the Mosaic Covenant relate purely to temporal issues which I take is the implication of "It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel's status as the temporary national people of God"?