Interesting Upcoming Book on the Mosaic Covenant

***Semper Fidelis*** · #41 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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!

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.

discipulo · #42 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

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).

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

.

RTaron · #43 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Quote:

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.

I agree, thanks, Rich

nicnap · #44 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 03:58 PM

discipulo · #45 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTaron

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.

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.

.

RTaron · #46 (**permalink**) 12-14-2008, 11:13 PM

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?

discipulo · #47 (**permalink**) 12-15-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

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? (...)

This anthology argues that the Mosaic covenant in some sense replicates the original covenant with Adam in the garden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTaron

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?

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

.

discipulo · #48 (**permalink**) 12-15-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

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. (...)

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. (...)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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. (...)

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.

Imho 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:

quote

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

.