P & R Publishing: Individual Title

The Law Is Not of Faith
Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant

Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, David VanDrunen

Is the Mosaic covenant in some sense a republication of the covenant of works? What is the nature of its demand for obedience, since sinful man is unable to obey as God requires? How in turn was the law to drive Israel to Jesus? This book explores these issues pertaining to the doctrine of republication—once a staple in Reformed theology—a doctrine with far-reaching implications for Paul’s theology, our relationship to Old Testament law, justification, and more.

This anthology argues that the Mosaic covenant in some sense replicates the original covenant with Adam in the garden, and that this notion is neither novel to nor optional for Reformed theology. The authors locate it within the fabric of federal theology in its Reformation and post-Reformation development, and more importantly, they demonstrate how it is firmly embedded in the flow of redemptive history. Finally, they explain why a thin and merely soteric Calvinism, without the support of federal theology, cannot withstand the challenges to Reformed orthodoxy today. While varying among themselves in their expression of this “republication thesis,” these authors together make a compelling and coherent argument with rich historical, exegetical, and theological insights.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Bump

I'll have to check it out.

__________________
JD Ketterman
Member of Grace OPC, Vienna VA

What is that supposed to mean? Paul's theology? Is that how they talk in the schools of higher leaning? As if what Paul wrote was not God Breathed.

__________________
Rick Taron
Bellingham URC.
Everson, WA.

Hi:

Would you like to discuss the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works? The authors of this book take the positive side. Reformed Theologians since the 16th Century (in the majority) have argued the opposite.

I would be interested in exploring this with anyone here.

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

That is not the implication at all. There are different emphases of different Scriptural writers. God did not ignore the human differences between Paul and John when fully inspiring His Bible. One can tell the difference between John and Paul. Of course, there are no contradictions, but that is certainly not implied in saying "Paul's theology."
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 11:27:31 EST-----
They are merely following the WCF, which clearly says in chapter 19 that the law is continuous from Adam to Sinai. Anyone not part of the covenant of grace is still subservient to the covenant of works. Of course, the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of grace. However, that does not prevent an overlap of covenants in the Mosaic economy. From my reading, most Reformed theologians have gone the route of republication, while also recognizing that the Mosaic economy has aspects of the covenant of grace as well.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

See that is the thing Lane. I think Chapter 7 of the WCF makes it pretty clear that the Mosaic Covenant is wholly a Covenant of Grace and is in no part of a Covenant of Works.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div
Licentiate Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

Member: Fairmount ARP Church Pittsburgh, PA
Attending: Looking for a Reformed church in North Central WV
Preaching: Nov. 8 Belington Presbyterian & Beverly Presbyterian PC(USA) Churches

Deo Vindice

Saying that the Mosaic economy is of grace does not preclude a simultaneous covenant of works. Read chapter 19 of the WCF very carefully, and you fill find that the moral law is the common thread here that links the Adamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant, though, of course, in such a way that the Mosaic economy is also a covenant of grace. Nothing in chapter 7 excludes an additional layer of the Mosaic economy.

Thanks Lane. It is a confusing way to use words if you ask me. How could you know what "Paul's theology" was in the first place without comparing it with the rest of the scripture?

Anyway, back to the topic. I'm with CH, if this book is promoting some view that the children of Israel received the promise land by works it is not confessional.

Of course one wouldn't know what "Paul's theology" was without comparing it to the rest of Scripture. However, is such a decontextualized method being advocated simply by saying "Paul's theology?" Surely it is being used as a synonym for "the corpus of Paul's books and what they mean." That is a bit cumbersome, however, so it is not surprising that someone may use a common, conventional even, way of referring to what Paul meant (what God meant through Paul).

What I believe the Divines to be teaching here in Chapter 19 is not that the Covenant of Works continues in the Law (because how can a Covenant continue after it is broken?) and that we are still able/supposed to fulfill act on this Covenant but that in effect the Law continues in its role as a schoolmaster just as it did for Adam. In other words the Law in the Garden fills the same role as it does for us. Also because the Covenant of Works was specifically limited to Gen 2:15-17 the rest of the law is still in effect, but the original Covenant is not, though since we are all still in Adam we all continued under the curse of Genesis 3.

I'll give you the fact that one can tell by comparison that an epistle was written by one writer over against another writer, but how can someone say that there was some kind of distinct theology. (what God meant through Paul about himself right?) Are we talking about an emphasis of some kind? then OK. But we digress.

Lane,

Using the logic of republication, could we not say then that the New Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works also? If not, why?

(to be fair - there is a trap waiting in the wings... )

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Christ fulfills the covenant of works, or maybe we could say He repairs the covenant of works, such that it applies to us as a covenant of grace, with Christ being the Mediator. The big problem with the lack of republication in the Mosaic covenant is that if the CoW is defunct in the sense of no longer applying, then Christ did not need to fulfill those conditions. The CoW is actually still in effect today for all those outside the CoG. If one is not in the CoG, then one is in the CoW, and still subject to its demands, broken though the covenant is. That covenant equals the moral law, which is my answer to Benjamin.

But Lane,

One can have a constancy in the CoW without Republication. Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity describes this well. In fact the CoW is still firmly in place for all outside Christ now, even though no one (I believe) would argue that the New Covenant is (in any sense) a republication of the CoW.

The CoW continues on from the Garden; it does not need republication. I would argue that making the Mosaic Covenant a republication creates far more problems than it solves (not the least of which is pitting the OT against the NT).

I've used the same argument. If where ever there is law this is the covenant of works, then the covenant of grace is a covenant of works. The problem I see with those arguing for republication is that they equate the law with the covenant of works (hence their, as I see it, misreading of WCF 19 to get their republication doctrine).

Say I have a $20 bill in my hand. That piece of paper is not a gift until I give it as a gift. I may use it at the store, and in that context, it's not a gift. When I give it as a gift then it's a gift. There's nothing inherent in the $20 that makes it a gift until I give it to someone else in that context and with that intention.

God's law exists. That law is not a covenant of works until he attaches a promise of eternal life for obedience to it. He may give the law in the context of the covenant of grace, and if he does this, then that doesn't make it a covenant of works. When he gives the law as a covenant of works, then that's what it is because that covenant establishes one's relationship to the law. There's nothing about the law that makes it a covenant of grace or a covenant of works unless God gives it with that intention.

God redeems Israel, then gives the law. Don't we see the very same general pattern in the NT epistles? God redeemed you, now live this way.

This has been discussed on here a lot in the past. I think I'll sit back and watch now.

__________________
Casey Bessette
Westminster OPC • West Suburbs of Chicago

I'm not arguing that the CoW somehow needed to be republished. I argue that it was in fact republished when Leviticus says "Do this and live." That is the essence of the CoW as ALL Reformed theologians have said. The promise of obtaining eternal life as the result of obeying the moral law has always existed. The Mosaic covenant says that too. For that matter, if one is not in the CoG today, even the NT tells us that we are in the CoW. The problem with eliminating the CoW from the Mosaic covenant entirely is that it obscures the close relationship that the CoW has with the CoG in Christ's person and work. Of course, here we cannot forget the pactum salutis. In the PS, the Son agreed to take on the brokenness of the CoW in order that, by the same token, it might be to us a CoG. The overlay in the Mosaic covenant speaks of this close relationship.

Such a position does not in any way pit the OT against the NT, since the very overlay points us to Christ who fulfills the CoW for us to that God can relate to us in the CoG. There is, of course, continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. The continuity is that the CoW is always in force. The discontinuity is that there is no overlay anymore between the CoG and the CoW.

Lane, where in the moral law are we required not to eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden? The covenant was with Adam the first and us in him.

I agree with Fred, "a republication creates far more problems than it solves" the first problem I see is that the covenant of works is changed, the bar is lowered and you have to ignore the fact that you come out of the womb guilty.

Your first question is not to the point, since, as 19.1 explicitly states the entire moral law was given to Adam AS the covenant of works. The CoW is a whole lot more than just the forbidding of the fruit. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. In that one command is summarized whether God will be Adam's God (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind). So the one command not to eat of the tree has to be set alongside the creation mandate given to Adam, and the entire moral law given to Adam.

As to your second point, I really don't see how coming out of the womb guilty assaults my point. We are part of the CoW as covenant breakers until God changes our covenant status to members of the CoG. How in the world is that lowering the bar?

Lane,

There is always an overlay between the CoW and the CoG (in time, but not in who is in each covenant). There is also an overlay between the Law as a covenant of works (for those outside Christ) and the Law as a rule of life (for those in Christ). Again, by far the best treatment of this I have read is Fisher's. I find his explanation far more satisfactory than that coming out of WSC (and even more so than Klinean explanations).

When the Law says "do this and live" it says it to the man in the CoW. It says it to him in Adam's day, Abraham's, Moses', and mine. The Law always says that to those outside of Christ. It does not need a republication to do that. The republication aspect militates against the Mosaic covenant's clear CoG aspect.

Here is something an acquaintance wrote.

-----Added 11/26/2008 at 02:26:58 EST-----
What did God give, when he wrote by his own hand the Ten Words on the Mt.?

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Lane, you said:
So, do you believe that if you kept the whole law perfectly, you would have earned a right to spend eternity with God ?

What about the guilt of Adams first sin. How would all your righteousness erase that sin?

I love Romans 3, 4, 7, and 10.

Greenbaggins:

I would like to see all those Reformed divines who claim that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works? As Pastor Greco has pointed out the Marrow makes it very plain that the Mosaic Covenant was not a republication of the Covenant of Works:

Consider, Lane, the very preface to the Law in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5:

Is this not a Gracious act on God's part? He delivered His people out of slavery in Egypt. As we all know that the Old Testament held types and shadows of the realities in the New, then should we not interpret this as the Covenant of Grace?

You refer to Leviticus 18:5, but I will submit to you that if you look at the verse carefully, then you will find that it is actually a statement of the Covenant of Grace. Consider the context:

This is the wording of the Covenant of Grace: "I will be your God, and you will be my people." God is addressing His People as their Covenant God.

God is commanding us to be separate from the Gentiles. When God takes a people to Himself He commands them to walk in His ordinances, and not those of the Gentiles.

God, speaking to His People already Redeemed, gives the Law as a Rule of Life for them to live. This is the Law in the Covenant of Grace given through the hand of the Mediator to direct us how to live. I see no republication of the Covenant of Works here.

Does Paul in referring to Lev 18:5 take this passage out of context in Romans 10:5 and Gal. 3:11,12? I hope not!

Since Paul is speaking about Justification in these passages he contrasts the Law as a Rule of Life in Sanctification with Justification by Faith alone. Calvin clearly points this out:

The arguemnt that Paul is making in Rom. 10 and Galatians 3 is the misuse of the Law as taught by Moses. Even to attempt to obey the Law as a Covenant of Works is contrary to Faith in Christ and the Covenant of Grace.

I have carefully read the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 19. What I see is that, "This Law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God on Mount Sinai.."

I see here the Law continuing as a perfect rule of righteousness, but I do not see here that the Covenant of Works continued. That way of receiving everlasting life being shut down, God now deals with all of mankind through the Covenant of Grace. Unbelievers rejecting the Covenant of Grace have no where to go for salvation - though they fancy they are saved by their good works. Read carefully WCF 19:6.

In Jesus,

Rob

I've been sitting back and observing, and I wanted to put down a few thoughts. I find it problematic to see a covenant of works as obsolete. If the covenant of works did in fact cease with Adam, then there was no need for Christ to fulfill all the terms of the covenant of works.

Ironically, the Westminster Divines use the Decalogue for their proof texts for the covenant of works. I agree with most in here that mosaic covenant is under the overarching covenant of Grace, but the substance or the works principle in the COW is definitely republished. Is the covenant in and of itself a covenant of works? Nope. But is the substance of that covenant made in creation republished? Yep.

Does that mean that Israel could earn their justification before God? No, and I don't think that is what those who are at WSC are saying. What they are saying is that there are two types of covenants that are put out through redemptive history. Just as Galations 4:21-31 says:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; [5] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, [6] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

The popular view that everyone seems to be advocated in here is that the covenants that were made with Abraham and Moses are not two covenants, but just one and the same covenant. The covenant made on Sinai (which most of you believe is all about Grace), Paul says bears children for slavery. This other covenant, made with Abraham, is said to bear free children. If the covenant of Sinai is not a republication of the COW, why does Paul says that this covenant bears slavery?

Passages such as Romans 2:13 clearly says that God will justify a man by their works. If the covenant of works was still not in effect, then such passages would make absolutely no sense unless you take a Norman Shepherd, FV, or New Perspective hermeneutic.

The Law being republished in Sinai was not meant to be a means of justification in and of itself, but it was meant to show us are inability to fulfill the terms of that covenant. If the works principle was not republished, then there is no reason to provide a sacrificial system for atonement. Israel many times broke the terms of this covenant which were provided in the Decalogue, and God many times required Sacrifice for Israel to receive blessings from God.

The effects of Covenant of Works go on as we live in our estate of sin and misery. Its authority is republished every minute of every day when someone dies.

I never said that the COW was obsolete. In fact, I said the opposite. I don't think (respectfully) JD, that you understand what I am saying.

It is (almost) funny to hear that I have a New Perspective or Shepherd hermeneutic.

The Law was indeed still a CoW to those outside Christ at the time of Sinai. No one (in a Westminsterian view) is denying that. What some of us are questioning is the propriety of saying that Sinai as a covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. It is a very different thing from Law as a principle of works ("do this and live") and the Law as a covenant.

I believe I gave some thoughts on that in Galatians 4:

http://cckpca.org/sermonfiles/galati...latians_20.mp3

Hi Fred,

I understand what you are saying, but I was answering to some in here who seem to think that the covenant of works is no longer binding. When I get a little time this week, I'll take a look at some of your thoughts of Galations 4.

As far as calling it a covenant of works in and of itself, I will agree with you that it is problematic. When using covenant of works language to describe the Decalogue, the language can be confusing because one is made with before the Fall and the other after the fall. However, I do see continuity between the two when we're speaking about a works principle.

In the beginning of this covenant, God declares Himself to be the one whom redeems Israel. In essence, I agree that this is given to redeemed people. God gives the ten words or the Decalogue to Israel for them so they can live if they are to receive blessings.

"And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God." (Deut 28:2)

If they are to break the terms of this covenant, curses are attached for covenant breaking.

“But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you." (Deut 28:15)

Paul, in Galations 4, contrasts the both of these covenants. Rather than calling them one covenant, like many in here are saying, he's calling them two covenants. One made of the slave woman and one made of the free woman. One that was made with Abraham and one that was made with Moses. This covenant made on Sinai, as Paul says, produces slavery. This other covenant made with Abraham, produces free women.

JD,

When Paul contrasts the two covenants, he is doing so between the Covenant of Law (Works) and the Covenant of Promise (Grace). He is contrasting the two principles, not Mosaic and New Covenants.

Rev McMahon makes this point in a past thread: The Mosaic Covenant as a temporal republication of the Covenant of Works in light of Deuteronomy 9

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

JDKetterman:

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?

Thanks,

Rob

Rob,

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.

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!

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

(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).

__________________
AV
Baptist
VA

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).

Adam,

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.

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.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Fred,

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.


Paul,

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

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.



Imho 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

Meredith_Kline_Online

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.
2000

http://www.god-centered.com/resource...omprologue.pdf


.

-----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

Paperback
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


.

__________________
César Proença

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt