Thread: Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF

Today I asked someone if he had read Michael Horton's God of Promise. He said that he hadn't, but he heard that Horton is "not quite on board" with the WCF on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm wondering what the difference is between the WCF and Horton if any.

Originally Posted by SRoper

Today I asked someone if he had read Michael Horton's God of Promise. He said that he hadn't, but he heard that Horton is "not quite on board" with the WCF on the subject of the Mosaic Covenant. I'm wondering what the difference is between the WCF and Horton if any.

I read God of Promise when I first began to study Covenant Theology. I believe Horton views the Mosaic Covenant as a renewal of the Covenant of Works instead of a renewal of the Covenant of Grace with a clearer understanding of the law contained therein.

*Subscribing*

I've read it...what exactly is your question?

I cannot recommend 'God of Promise' enough; it's a fantastic read.

Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.

Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.

I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by S. Spence

I cannot recommend 'God of Promise' enough; it's a fantastic read.

Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.

Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.

I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.

Thanks for clarifying it more than I was able.

I agree with the particular view discussed, but I don't think that it can be said that it is necessarily the classic view of covenant theology, in as much as there are several views held regarding the Mosaic administration among older writers. Turretin and Witsius both have things to say regarding this. I believe that Witsius embraces it, Turretin recognizes it as a valid viewpoint among the Reformed w/o subscribing in all the details, Hodge mentions it in his commentary on 2 Corinthians.

Like I said, I think it is correct, and only makes sense of the big picture, but I was actually labeled as teaching heresy by an ill-informed OPC pastor during a summer internship, who took me aside in his office to proclaim that if I ever taught it again he would bring me up on charges. He refused to apologize and acknowledge that this view was embraced by older Reformed theologians, even after I showed him the hard evidence. It sure seems to get some folks blood boiling, although I have never been quite sure why it does so. Just be prepared with your evidence.

This is not "classic" covenant theology, but an inept modern justification of it.

The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.

The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

Look before you cross the road!

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

Would you do me a favor and flesh this out a bit for me. Never seen this argument before. Or if you know of a place it is detailed further, point me in the direction.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by S. Spence

however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation.

I am struggling with this issue too. Didn't Israel sin and broke the law at Mt Sinai and repeatedly afterwards, and in spite of that, God still brought them into the land? That to me sounds more like CoG than CoW, even with respect to the land promise. In contrast, in CoW, there is no grace in breaking the law...

I love listening to WHI, and am under the impression that Horton loves to emphasize the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the conditional nature of Mosaic covenant. And I have a hard time squaring it with Genesis 17. To me it seems, in Genesis 17 God's land promise to Abraham is tie up to Abraham's responsibility to "walk before me, and be blameless" and to circumcise his children, just as the land promise in the Mosaic covenant is tie up to Israel keeping the law. So, I am not sure why on one hand we can say Mosaic covenant is a republication of CoW in a typological sense, on the other hand the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant both have typological fulfillment (i.e. land promise) and responsibility, but they are not regarded as a republication of CoW. (I am not advocating that they should be regarded as republication of CoW at all)

I know this topic has been brought up repeatedly, and I really appreciate all previous responses. I am probably not informed enough to make up my mind at the moment...

Originally Posted by crhoades

Would you do me a favor and flesh this out a bit for me. Never seen this argument before. Or if you know of a place it is detailed further, point me in the direction.

I'm not sure what you would like fleshed out -- the idea of reduplication of the covenant of works, or the fact that it undermines continuity of the covenant of grace?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I'm not sure what you would like fleshed out -- the idea of reduplication of the covenant of works, or the fact that it undermines continuity of the covenant of grace?

The whole inclusion of infants part and how that is undermined...

Let's take Horton's quotation of Robertson on p. 96. Robertson follows the traditional line: "Law under Moses never was intended to function apart from promise. Separated from its promise-dimension, which reached its fulfilment in Christ, law never could provide a way for making sinners righteous." On this line of thinking we see that Israel is constituted a nation under God by grace. The law was added because of transgression, and to bind Israel into the true religion until Christ comes.

Now Horton responds. On p. 97 he approvingly quotes Kline: "the Sinaitic covenant as such ... 'made inheritance to be by law, not by promise -- not by faith, but by works.'" (The theology of Numbers alone refutes this, but let's keep to the matter at hand.) Horton argues the theocracy is a renewed law covenant, and so on and so forth.

However, who is the party to this law-covenant? It is the nation, the theocracy. What is promised? The inheritance. How was it obtained? By works. Now let us ask, On what basis were infants circumcised? On the basis that they belonged to the covenant-nation and had right to the inheritance? Which covenant gives them right to the inheritance? The covenant of works. It has all gone terribly wrong, I regret to say.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.

The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

Look before you cross the road!

While I have not read "God of Promise" myself, and enjoy listening to Micheal Horton, I generally agree with these criticisms. The Mosaic Covenant should be looked at in the framework of the Covenant of Grace. While systematically, the three-fold use of the law exists within the giving of the law, the context of the ten-commandments warrants the 3rd use as primary. First the indicative, then the imperative.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

Now, do this...

Here are some sources on republication along with some commentary culled from Heidelblog.

Did every Reformed theologian in the 17th century teach republication? No. Was it widely taught? Yes. Did they work out the details thoroughly? No. It's there, however. I'm sorry for the rough shape of some of these source references. They are culled from an old paper by Lee Irons. I need to go back and track down these and other sources and clean them up, but they serve to give the idea that the idea of republication certainly existed in the 17th century.
--

For that the Old Testament did serve specially to prepare men to receive Christ, which in his appointed time was to come. For law was a schoolmaster unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). Therefore the greatest part of the Old Testament is spend propounding, repeating, and expounding the covenant of works. And because Christ was not yet manifested in the flesh, therefore the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is more sparingly and darkly set forth in it (Robert Rollock, Treatise of Effectual Calling, p. ___)

The testament is new in relation to what existed from the time of Moses and in relation to the promise made to the fathers. But it is new not in essence but in form. In the former circumstances the form of administration gave some evidence of the covenant of works, from which this testament is essentially different.

Since the complete difference between the new covenant and the old appeared only in the administration which came after Christ, this administration is properly termed the covenant and testament which is new. This differs also from the former administration in quality and quantity. Its difference in quality is in clarity and freedom. Clarity occurs, first in the more distinct expression than heretofore of the doctrine of grace and salvation through Christ and through faith in him ... Freedom comes, first, in doing away with government by law, or the intermixture of the covenant of works, which held the ancient people in a certain bondage. (Ames, Marrow, 206)

The covenant of works is that in which God promiseth everlasting life unto a man that in all respects performeth perfect obedience to the law of works, adding thereunto threatenings of eternal death, if he shall not perform perfect obedience thereto. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, whilst he was in the first estate of integrity: the same covenant God did repeat and make again by Moses with the people of Israel (Amandus Polanus, Syntagma, ___)

The second administration of this covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; where, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue first graven in man’s heart, God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his neighbour, expressed in the decalogue; according to the tenor of which law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness, upon condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded; which condition they accepted of, promising an absolute obedience, Exod. xix.8, “All things which the Lord hath said we will
do;” and also submitting themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, “Amen” to the curse of the law, “Cursed be every one that confirmeth not all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen. (William Premble, ____)

It pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period [from Moses to Christ] under a rigid legal economy – both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set
forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed. In this respect, the law is called the letter that kills (2 Cor. 3:6) and the handwriting which was contrary to us (Col. 2:14), because by it men professed themselves guilty and children of death, the declaration being written by their own blood in circumcision and by the blood of victims

According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it ... On the part of the people, [this external economy of legal teaching] was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt. 27:26; Gal. 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom. 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.
(Turretin, 2.227)

Their fall in Adam was almost forgotten [by the Jews] ... Nay, in that long course of time betwixt Adam and Moses, men had forgotten what was sin ... Rom. v.20, therefore, “the law entered,” that Adam’s offense and their own actual transgression might abound, so that now the Lord saw it needful, that there should be a new edition and publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect unbelievers to come to Christ, the promised seed, and that the grace of God in Christ to the elect believers might appear the more exceeding glorious (Marrow of Modern Divinity, 61)

Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount
Sinai to the Israelites. First, the covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the ten commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people.
Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten
commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and the sanctions thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed (Thomas Boston's Annotations of the Marrow, 56).

Owen, Commentary on Hebrews vol 6.80-81

Witsius, Economy, 2.359

The Apostle Gal. 4.24 ... mentions a double covenant, the former of which is “by works of the law” ... If you say the Apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the Apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is re-enacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works (Peter Van Mastricht, ___)

--

As Mike Horton acknowledges in his recent work on covenant theology, one of the more difficult issues in covenant theology is how to relate the Mosaic covenant to the earlier Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Complicating matters is the old Dispensational doctrine that there are different ways of salvation under different "dispensations." I recognize that the more modern Dispensationalists abandoned that doctrine but the damage has been done. Not only is it virtually impossible, rhetorically, for Reformed folk to use the word "dispensation" (even though we used to use it regularly and it's quite useful word in describing the progress of redemptive history) without creating suspicion and confusion but there are lots of folk out there who read the Bible atomistically (chopping it up) and who think that we Christians have nothing to do with Abraham! Dispensationalism has also created a layer of difficulty by generating a reaction against Dispensationalism which has caused reluctance among some Reformed folk to recognize any differences between the Old (Moses) and New (Christ) Covenants. In their own ways, both the Dispensationalists and those who react against it flatten out the hills and valleys of redemptive history. The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.

One of the interesting and useful features of the older (classic) covenant theology of the 17th century was the doctrine of "re-publication." It was widely held among 17th-century Reformed theologians that, in certain ways, the giving of the Law at Sinai was a "re-publication" of the Law given in the garden to Adam as part of the covenant of works (John Owen, Herman Witsius, Leonard van Rijssen, Johannes Marckius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston taught it). They took the promulgation of the law at Sinai as evidence of the covenant of works in the garden with Adam. They thought this way because they had a doctrine of natural or creational law, i.e., there is a moral law that was given in the garden that is reflected in the law given at Sinai.

This re-publication of the Law was not a new "Dispensation" of salvation or way of being justified. Rather, the Mosaic national covenant with Israel was regarded by the Reformed as operating on multiple levels at the same time. As Paul says in Gal 3, the covenant of grace, the Abrahamic covenant is the administration of God's saving grace. It was and remains a covenant of grace. Paul's argument is that nothing about the Mosaic national covenant that changes God's promises made to and through Abraham. Hence Paul says that Abraham (Rom 3-4) is the father of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e., Jew and Gentile) before Moses, during the Old Covenant, and since.

Thus, before, during, and after the Mosaic national covenant, all the elect were saved and justified by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solo Christo). So what was unique about the Mosaic national covenant? Three things:

1) It was a national covenant. Neither the Abrahamic covenant nor the New Covenant were or are national. The Mosaic covenant had a civil and religious/ceremonial code embedded in it. The Mosaic covenant constituted Israel as a national people temporarily. The national covenant was very much about "insiders" and "outsiders." That's not to say that Gentiles could not be initiated. Quite to the contrary, they certainly were, but in so doing, they had to become ritually Israelite through circumcision. This national (civic and ceremonial) aspect distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the Abrahamic and the New Covenants which were and are not national but trans-national.

One of the more important conclusions from this doctrine is one that our 17th century forefathers did not recognize very clearly is that the idea of a national covenant is defunct. God doesn't enter into national covenants with any national entity since the crucifixion. Christ's kingdom, expressed in his visible, institutional church through the preaching of the gospel, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline, knows no national boundaries (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2). The dividing wall (the civil and ceremonial laws, circumcision) has been broken down in the body of Jesus, the true Israel of God. After the expiration of the national covenant, the kingdom of God has no civil administration. Attempts to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration whether in theocracy or theonomy are fundamentally misguided. It is a puzzle how we can see so clearly that the Roman attempt to resurrect the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant is wrong but some cannot see how wrong it is to try to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration?

2) It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel's status as the temporary national people of God. In Exod 24, Israel swore a blood oath that she, as a national people, would keep the law and it was on this legal basis that Israel was ultimately expelled from the promised land and on which basis she lost her status as the national people of God. Another layer of difficulty in this regard is that, as it seems to me, Israel broke this national covenant before the terms of the agreement were even delivered down the mountain! That pattern continued throughout her history so that the only reason that Israel retained the national covenant at all was the forebearance of God. Certainly Israel did not strictly merit retaining the national covenant. See Iain Duguid's chapter in CJPM. covenant justification cover.jpg

3) It was temporary. The Mosaic national covenant was instituted about (depending on the date of the Pentateuch) 15 centuries before the Advent of Christ and it expired with the crucifixion of Christ. The New Testament makes clear (e.g., Acts 10; Acts 15; 2 Cor 3; the book of Hebrews!) the Mosaic Covenant is finished. It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments. At every point in their daily lives the Israelites were reminded of their sin and need for a Savior. Corporately, Israel served as the world's largest and longest and most colorful sermon illustration. Thus the writer to the Hebrews (ch. 2) says that Moses worked for Jesus. Moses' whole reason for being was to serve as a pointer to Christ (and as a pointer to the ultimate realities in heaven; see Heb 11).

Finally, it has been argued by some (e.g., some of my friends on the Puritanboard) that the doctrine of re-publication is "unconfessional." To this I appeal to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1. This reading of the confession caused Thomas Boston, in his notes in E. F., The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scarsdale, NY: Westminster Discount Books, n.d.), 58, to exclaim,

How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see.” These same theologians also held that Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. The doctrine of unity of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of republication were regarded as complementary not antithetical.


I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication. If you want to research this here are some leads:

See Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (1803; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 1,336–337; Leonard van Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae (Amsterdam: 1695.), 89. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 6.85. Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae (Amsterdam, 1749), 345–346; Peter Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 3 vols (Utrecht: 1699), 3.12.23.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication.

Prof. Clark, are you able to show one of the "republication" sources advocating the nation was under a republished covenant of works? I seriously doubt it.

Could the theory be any more contradictory? The Abrahamic covenant is supposed to be one of grace. What was Abraham promised? A seed and a land. All that is done by God in the Mosaic era is specifically said to be in faithfulness to the covenant made with the fathers. What has God done? Multiplied the seed into a nation, establishing the covenant privilege given to Abraham, and reaffirming the gift of the promised land. But then we are asked to believe that the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace issues in the establishment of a Mosaic republication of the covenant of works.

I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity.

Concerning national covenanting, you have to plow with reformed theology's heifer if you want to find out reformed theology's riddle.

S. Spence wrote:

Horton's view on the Mosaic covenant is actually the same as 'classic' covenant theology.

Very briefly put, under the Mosaic Covenant salvation was by grace as it is in all ages, however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. When Israel sinned and broke God’s law we see her being carried away into captivity but even in captivity we see a faithful remnant, saved not by keeping the law but by grace.

I’ve written this in a bit of a hurry but I hope that helps.

R.Scott Clark wrote:

As Mike Horton acknowledges in his recent work on covenant theology, one of the more difficult issues in covenant theology is how to relate the Mosaic covenant to the earlier Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Complicating matters is the old Dispensational doctrine that there are different ways of salvation under different "dispensations." I recognize that the more modern Dispensationalists abandoned that doctrine but the damage has been done. Not only is it virtually impossible, rhetorically, for Reformed folk to use the word "dispensation" (even though we used to use it regularly and it's quite useful word in describing the progress of redemptive history) without creating suspicion and confusion but there are lots of folk out there who read the Bible atomistically (chopping it up) and who think that we Christians have nothing to do with Abraham! Dispensationalism has also created a layer of difficulty by generating a reaction against Dispensationalism which has caused reluctance among some Reformed folk to recognize any differences between the Old (Moses) and New (Christ) Covenants. In their own ways, both the Dispensationalists and those who react against it flatten out the hills and valleys of redemptive history. The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.

Here is one of the main problems with Klinean covenantalism. Notice how the Mosaic covenant is on the one hand affirmed as being part of the covenant of grace (but only in a strange technical sense). Yet, after that affirmation is made, it seems to be rejected and we are told that the Mosaic covenant is a re-publication of the covenant of works. This is how it basically works. The reason that the Mosaic covenant is said to be part of the covenant of grace is that it occurs during the administration of the Abrahamic covenant! Notice how Dr. Clark says that the real continuity is between Abraham and Christ, not Moses. Furthermore, Dr. Horton says that the Mosaic covenant (of works) simply didn't annul the promise made to Abraham (of grace). Therefore, the question that the Klinean covenantalists (like Dr. Horton and Dr. Clark) need to answer is whether or not the mosaic covenant ITSELF was part of the covenant of Grace, apart from it's being delivered during the Abrahamic Covenant. They seem to think it was part of the covenant of grace simply because someone during it's adminstration was saved by faith, not because of the Mosaic covenant, but because of the Abrahamic. Therefore, with that logic, the Mosaic covenant, ITSELF, was part of the covenant of works. But, that covenant of works didn't negate the covenant of grace given to Abraham. Notice again what Dr. Clark says:

The short story is that the continuity in the Bible is not so much between Moses and Christ (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7) but between Abraham and Christ. Moses belongs in that continuity insofar as those under the Old Covenant also participated in the covenant of grace.

According to Dr. Clark the only thing that makes the Mosaic covenant part of the Covenant of Grace is that those who participated in that Covenant were saved by the grace promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant itself was not part of the covenant of Grace, it was simply administered during the era of the covenant of grace!

I don't really like writing on the behalf of Mike Horton, however just thought I should respond to this:

According to Dr. Clark the only thing that makes the Mosaic covenant part of the Covenant of Grace is that those who participated in that Covenant were saved by the grace promised in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant itself was not part of the covenant of Grace, it was simply administered during the era of the covenant of grace!

I believe that while Dr Horton does believe the Mosaic covenant to be a republication of the C of W to some extent, he still sees it as an administration of the C of G. This is because the Mosaic covenant 'flows' directly from the Abrahamic.

Exodus 2....
23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew.

Just another point:

Originally Posted by armourbearer
It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.

I can understand your logic Rev. Winzer and I'm fearful to disagree from you as I have greatly benefited from your posts in the past. However up and until I read 'God of Promise' I was a Reformed Baptist and it was actually through reading this book that I moved from the baptist position to the paedobaptist position.

You may fin these interesting:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers...mosaic_cov.pdf

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism...tionMosaic.htm

The above are excellent IMO.

I found Gill helpful:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...4/book4_06.htm

First, The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it.

See also:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi.../sermon_31.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi.../sermon_32.htm

If you feel like it here is Crisp's sermon The Two Covenants of Grace

Originally Posted by S. Spence

I don't really like writing on the behalf of Mike Horton, however just thought I should respond to this:



I believe that while Dr Horton does believe the Mosaic covenant to be a republication of the C of W to some extent, he still sees it as an administration of the C of G. This is because the Mosaic covenant 'flows' directly from the Abrahamic.

Exodus 2....
23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew.

Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.

Go back and read horton again, he doesn't argue this.

I can't, I've actually lent the book to someone else!
However if I have taken some of what Dr Horton says out of context I apologise.

When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.

Originally Posted by non dignus

When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.

I am in the covenant of grace. If I do not love the law and do as it commands and effectively disrespect my boss at work (5th commandment) and am lazy (stealing) then why would I not get kicked out of my job? Does that mean that I am participating in the covenant of works or that even in the CoG actions have consequences? The Father still disciplines us even when we are truly a part of the CoG.

This is a long drawn out way of saying that even as Christians as a part of the CoG there still is the third use of the law as well as consequences for breaking it.

Good analogy, Chris. My point is that your job is not a covenant of grace. It is God's grace that you work, but the covenant with your boss is strictly performance based.

Originally Posted by non dignus

Good analogy, Chris. My point is that your job is not a covenant of grace. It is God's grace that you work, but the covenant with your boss is strictly performance based.

Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time!

I think the point I was making that there isn't a covenant with my boss. IOW there isn't a CoW within my larger CoG but rather it is the 3rd use of the law within my larger CoG. Even Abraham had stipulations/conditions within the unconditional CoG. Abraham had to walk uprightly and when he didn't he had to pay the consequences. I would say that sleeping with your maidservant might have caused some not so good consequences between him and Sarah. That doesn't mean that there was a republication of the CoW with Abraham.

I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I'm making sense. I am more than eager for everyone to sharpen this rusty piece of iron in regards to covenenat theology.

Originally Posted by non dignus

When a people get kicked out of the land for non-performance, I am loath to characterize that covenant overall as gracious.

But they broke the law the minute the law was given, God still led them into the land and establish the kingdom, shouldn't that be viewed as more in line with CoG regarding the national promise? In CoW there is no grace in sinning
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

I am not disagreeing that there are "do this and live" language in the Mosaic covenant, but there are similar language in the Abrahamic covenant:

Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless

Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

And when God established His covenant with David's son:

1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.

Both of the covenant contain typological fulfillment (land promise, earthly kingdom) that are temporary in nature, should we also regard them as a republication of CoW in a typological sense?

Or, would it be more accurate to say that CoG is a CoW fulfilled by Christ, therefore CoG intrinsically contain laws and commandment (that are to be fulfilled by Christ, Abraham certainly isn't blameless before God, his inheriting the land is according to grace, just like the Israelite). Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenant all contain law and commandments, the law in Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the CoW, but an expansion and exposition of the law in the CoG that is present but not at the forthfront of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant?

I am confused...

Originally Posted by crhoades

Hopefully there's a touch of grace thrown in come performance review time!

I think the point I was making that there isn't a covenant with my boss. IOW there isn't a CoW within my larger CoG but rather it is the 3rd use of the law within my larger CoG. Even Abraham had stipulations/conditions within the unconditional CoG. Abraham had to walk uprightly and when he didn't he had to pay the consequences. I would say that sleeping with your maidservant might have caused some not so good consequences between him and Sarah. That doesn't mean that there was a republication of the CoW with Abraham.

I will ponder that 3rd use idea. But I think the job, like Sinai, is a works covenant that is overlaid the greater CoG so that they are working in tandem.

I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I'm making sense. I am more than eager for everyone to sharpen this rusty piece of iron in regards to covenenat theology.

I'm working through this too. Thanks for the sharpening!

Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo

But they broke the law the minute the law was given, God still led them into the land and establish the kingdom, shouldn't that be viewed as more in line with CoG regarding the national promise? In CoW there is no grace in sinning
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

I am not disagreeing that there are "do this and live" language in the Mosaic covenant, but there are similar language in the Abrahamic covenant:

Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless

Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

And when God established His covenant with David's son:

1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.

Both of the covenant contain typological fulfillment (land promise, earthly kingdom) that are temporary in nature, should we also regard them as a republication of CoW in a typological sense?

Or, would it be more accurate to say that CoG is a CoW fulfilled by Christ, therefore CoG intrinsically contain laws and commandment (that are to be fulfilled by Christ, Abraham certainly isn't blameless before God, his inheriting the land is according to grace, just like the Israelite). Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenant all contain law and commandments, the law in Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the CoW, but an expansion and exposition of the law in the CoG that is present but not at the forthfront of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant?

I am confused...

I'm still learning this too. I believe much confusion arises when we picture the Abrahamic' and Mosaic' as running in a serial configuration rather than in parallel configuration. It was for Abraham's sake, not 'Moses', that God was gracious during the probation of Israel.

Remember Christ was born under the law in order to fulfill what Adam failed to do.
Christ,the second Adam was placed under a second works probation.

Originally Posted by non dignus

I will ponder that 3rd use idea. But I think the job, like Sinai, is a works covenant that is overlaid the greater CoG so that they are working in tandem.

I'm working through this too. Thanks for the sharpening!

So when you say "is a works covenant" are you meaning that the idea that salvation could have been had if they walked accordingly to the law? Isn't that what the CoW was about? Attaining everlasting life? I think that perhaps the concept that everywhere we see law we see CoW is the point of stumbling? Is there any reason why there could not be law given with consequences as a part of the gracious covenant? Again, we would all hold to the third use of the law within the CoG so why could that not apply within the Mosaic administration of the CoG? Is there a necessity for making it CoW republication or is there another possible explanation?

These are questions that I have -not necessarily addressed to you - but to everyone.

I'm hoping to sort through these matters.

Originally Posted by crhoades

So when you say "is a works covenant" are you meaning that the idea that salvation could have been had if they walked accordingly to the law? Isn't that what the CoW was about? Attaining everlasting life?

If I understand the question: Yes, if they had walked according to the law they would have only retained the land with all commensurate benefits.

The Mosaic' is typological of salvation and condemnation under the original (now lapsed) CoW which is still running parallel to the CoG .

Is it me or does anyone else see the connections between this schema of republication of the covenant of works to be remarkably similar to the confessional Lutheran theologians descriptions of "Law" and "Gospel"? I find the parallels interesting. Of course, I think this view of the Covenant Theology should also lead one to a higher view of the sacraments and their importance in the covenant renewal ceremony.

Originally Posted by S. Spence

I can understand your logic Rev. Winzer and I'm fearful to disagree from you as I have greatly benefited from your posts in the past. However up and until I read 'God of Promise' I was a Reformed Baptist and it was actually through reading this book that I moved from the baptist position to the paedobaptist position.

You shouldn't be fearful to disagree with me; your disagreement may force me to become clearer in my thinking, which is a good thing. I'm glad God of Promise was helpful to you. I wouldn't want to give the impression I think the book is useless, and certainly wouldn't want to undermine your conviction concerning infant baptism. Not at all. But from a traditionalist's perspective the work tries to wed too much modern thinking within the classic schema, and that is what I find problematic. Blessings!

I'm hesitant to add thoughts on this because I am no expert on either the traditionalist view on this or the Klinean view. I've certainly seen the material but am in no way qualified to fully critique it.

It is hard for me sometimes to figure out where the objection to Dr. Horton might be more distinctly Presbyterian.

I have read the book and found it very helpful but primarily in the realm of the discussion of the Sacraments and fleshing those ideas out a bit more for me. I'll be honest, however, that I don't know that I completely like the way that Abraham, Moses, and David are introduced. It seems that suzerain treaty language is used just as much as Scriptural language. I think it's interesting to see parallels to Hittite suzerain treaties but to couch your language based on patterns seen in other Near Eastern documents makes things harder for me to appreciate at times rather than easier.

I believe the basic idea is preserved about the type of the Old Covenant in Moses is not the Abrahamic promise but a "binding up" period in both schemas. Let's be honest here that Paul does not take a great deal of time in Galatians and other places explaining what he means by his terms but it is clear that the Law came after Abraham and had a distinct character from the promise that was made.

I think Dr. Horton makes this notion very clear in the text but I'm still skeptical about all the Royal Grant/Suzerain treaty language utilized.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

The New Testament makes clear (e.g., Acts 10; Acts 15; 2 Cor 3; the book of Hebrews!) the Mosaic Covenant is finished. It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments. At every point in their daily lives the Israelites were reminded of their sin and need for a Savior. Corporately, Israel served as the world's largest and longest and most colorful sermon illustration. Thus the writer to the Hebrews (ch. 2) says that Moses worked for Jesus. Moses' whole reason for being was to serve as a pointer to Christ (and as a pointer to the ultimate realities in heaven; see Heb 11).

SemperFideles:
I believe the basic idea is preserved about the type of the Old Covenant in Moses is not the Abrahamic promise but a "binding up" period in both schemas. Let's be honest here that Paul does not take a great deal of time in Galatians and other places explaining what he means by his terms but it is clear that the Law came after Abraham and had a distinct character from the promise that was made.

Just to clear something up. . . . . .

One of the favorite passages of those who follows Kline's covenant theology is Galatians 3. They argue that this passage shows that the Mosaic covenant, and specifically the law given there, has expired. This is their main passage for showing that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. The problem is that their interpretation of Galatians 3 is absolutely impossible.

Firstly (although I won't make a big deal out of this argument, even though it is fatal to their interpretation) the analogy of Scripture from Matthew 5 debunks their interpretation. Their Christ said that the law found in the Mosaic covenant would not pass away.

But, the main problem with their interpretation of Gal. 3 is that it isn't speaking of the moral law. Paul uses the term law, but he is clearly speaking of those laws which were restorative, or ceremonial in character. Firstly, this is seen when the historical occasion for the book is taken into account. Who is Paul writing against? The Judaizers, who were trying to make the people submit to the ceremonial law. Secondly, it is clearly seen to be the ceremonial law in his argument concerning the school master. The Kliniean covenant theologians interpret this schoolmaster as being Mosaic law. This is seen clearly in the following statement made previously by Dr. Clark

It was, as Paul says in Gal 3, a "pedagogue," that is, a harsh school teacher (with a stick in his hand!). Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments.

The problem is that conception makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's argument.

Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal. 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul here teaches that the law kept them in prison, shutting them in until something happened, that is until the sacrificial atonement of Christ. And that law was a school teacher to bring them to Christ, in order that they might truly be justified by faith. After this there is no longer a need for a tutor.
This is basically the argument the author to the hebrews makes concerning the ceremonial law. The restorative law (ceremonial) taught justification by faith, but it could not accomplish that which it pictured. It was always picturing, always teaching, but never accomplishing. It was a schoolmaster, it lead them unto Christ, the ultimate reality of what it pictured, that they might be justified.
Now I challenge Dr. Clark, or anyone else to show how the law is in any way a schoolmaster that will lead us to faith in Christ. IT CANNOT BE DONE. One might say that it shows us our sin, and our need for him.

Its function was to drive the Israelites to Christ through the promulgation of 613 commandments.

But this is not Paul's argument. The law truly does show us our guilt, but it does not in any way lead us to Christ to be justified by faith! You could give a million people a copy of the moral/judicial law and they could study it all of their lives, and not a one will come up with the fact that God was going to provide a sacrifice for sin. Redemption is not found or pictured in the moral law.
Dr. Clark's argument is basically: 1) the school teacher is harsh "with a stick in his hand." 2) the mosaic law is harsh. Therefore, the school teacher is the mosaic law. That is simply poor reasoning. What if I said: 1) Elephants are dangerous creatures. 2) Sharks are dangerous creatures. Therefore elephants are sharks. This is not acceptable reasoning. Dr. Clark needs to show how the judicial/moral law in any way teaches someone justification by faith. He also needs to change his view of the law as a harsh teacher with a stick in his hand. David surely did not have that view of God's perfect law when he wrote

Psa. 19:7 The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
Psa. 19:8 The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psa. 19:9 The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether.
Psa. 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb.
Psa. 19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward.

So I challenge you to open your Bibles to Galatians 3 and read it again, and ask yourself whether or not it makes more since to view the "law" being spoken of as those ceremonial laws that passed away at the atonement of Christ, or if it is a rejection of the Mosaic moral code.

Along those lines, may I commend Chapter 7 in Theonomy a Reformed Critique by Moises Silva entitled: Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity as well as Moises Silva, "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians Galatians , (pp. 217-48) in Justification and Variegated Nomism edited by Carson.

I'm no Klinean (actually far from it) but it appears to me that by "law" Paul means more than the ceremonies. I'm not sure how you can substitute "ceremonial sacrificial system" in the following verses of Galatians 3:

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them

especially since the quotation by Paul is from Deuteronomy 27, which clearly is a summation of the Mosaic law in toto rather than just the ceremonies.

Galatians 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather (a)"The one who does them shall live by them.

(here citing Lev. 18:5, clearly a do passage, not a ceremonial sacrificial system passage)

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

(the curse of the law referring to commandments, not ceremonies)

So I have read Galatians 3 again, and without being Klinean (or even agreeing with Horton on the republication aspect) I will side with Calvin, and not Mr. Wetmore:

We must again remind the reader that Paul does not treat exclusively of ceremonies, or of the moral law, but embraces the whole economy by which the Lord governed his people under the Old Testament. It became a subject of dispute whether the form of government instituted by Moses had any influence in obtaining righteousness. Paul compares this law first to a prison, and next to a schoolmaster. Such was the nature of the law, as both comparisons plainly show, that it could not have been in force beyond a certain time.

But a question arises, what was the instruction or education of this
schoolmaster? First, the law, by displaying the justice of God, convinced
them that in themselves they were unrighteous; for in the commandments of
God, as in a mirror, they might see how far they were distant from true
righteousness. They were thus reminded that righteousness must be sought
in some other quarter. The promises of the law served the same purpose,
and might lead to such reflections as these: “If you cannot obtain life by
works but by fulfilling the law, some new and different method must be
sought. Your weakness will never allow you to ascend so high; nay, though
you desire and strive ever so much, you will fall far short of the object.” The
threatenings, on the other hand, pressed and entreated them to seek refuge
from the wrath and curse of God, and gave them no rest till they were
constrained to seek the grace of Christ.
Such too, was the tendency of all the ceremonies; for what end did sacrifices
and washings serve but to keep the mind continually fixed on pollution and
condemnation? When a man’s uncleanness is placed before his eyes, when
the unoffending animal is held forth as the image of his own death, how can
he indulge in sleep? How can he but be roused to the earnest cry for
deliverance? Beyond all doubt, ceremonies accomplished their object, not
merely by alarming and humbling the conscience, but by exciting them to the
faith of the coming Redeemer. In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual,
every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ. (Calvin, on Galatians 3)

This thought from Calvin shows that the Mosaic ritual was an administration of the covenant of grace: "In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual, every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This thought from Calvin shows that the Mosaic ritual was an administration of the covenant of grace: "In the imposing services of the Mosaic ritual, every thing that was presented to the eye bore an impress of Christ."

Yes, indeed. The impress of Christ vanquishing the serpent from the temple/garden.

fredtgreco wrote:
I'm no Klinean (actually far from it) but it appears to me that by "law" Paul means more than the ceremonies. I'm not sure how you can substitute "ceremonial sacrificial system" in the following verses of Galatians 3:

Quote:
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them
especially since the quotation by Paul is from Deuteronomy 27, which clearly is a summation of the Mosaic law in toto rather than just the ceremonies.


Quote:
Galatians 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather (a)"The one who does them shall live by them.
(here citing Lev. 18:5, clearly a do passage, not a ceremonial sacrificial system passage)

Quote:
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"
(the curse of the law referring to commandments, not ceremonies)

So I have read Galatians 3 again, and without being Klinean (or even agreeing with Horton on the republication aspect) I will side with Calvin, and not Mr. Wetmore:

I guess I wasn't clear, I apologize. When I referenced Galatians 3, I was specifically referring to Gal 3:23ff and their interpretation of the schoolmaster as the judicial law. I believe that in the earlier part of Gal 3 Paul is simply referring to the Mosaic administration. I do believe that even in that earlier part of Gal 3 the Klineian interpretation is wrong, but I don't think I have the time right now to give an exegetical paper on that section. Suffice it to say that I think that Paul is talking about a misunderstanding (judiazer view) of the Mosaic law, as a covenant of works.
Paul is arguing that the Mosaic administration was never meant to be a covenant of works. This judiazer tendency to view the Mosaic adminstration as a covenant of works and not as a covenant of grace is clearly expressed by Paul in Rom 9 when he writes

Rom. 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
Rom. 9:31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Rom. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;
Rom. 9:33 even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

The problem with the Judiazer mentality is that though they followed the law, they did not arrive at the true meaning of the law. Why did they not arrive at the true meaning of the law? Because they sought it not by faith, but treated is as though it were by works, therefore they stumbled and fell. They did not understand that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works, but it was meant to be lived out in faith, not by works!

Paul goes on to say

Rom. 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved.
Rom. 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom. 10:3 For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom. 10:5 For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby.

In seeking to follow the law as a covenant of works, they were ignorant of God's righteousness, and they instead sought to establish it on their own, and they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end, the telos, the aim of the law unto righteousness to everyone that believes. In this context, Paul qoutes Moses saying that the man who truly seeks after the righteousness of God in the law, that is the righteousness that is by faith, shall live thereby. In other words, when the law is followed how it was meant to be given, in faith and not by works, it will be an experience of life to them and not death. The judiazers turned this around and acted as though the man who lived according to the law would merit life by it!
I believe that what Paul is doing in Galatians 3:12 is qouting that passage from the false understanding of the Judiazers, he is showing that their false understanding of the law as a system of merit unto life does not fit with God's rigtheousness that is revealed by faith.

What he is arguing against in the first part of Gal 3 is a false understanding of the Mosaic law, that pits law against the promise.

Gal. 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
Gal. 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.

Paul here is saying that the Mosaic covenant is not of works, he says if it were by works, it would be no more by promise, but it is by promise. In the false understanding of the Mosaic administration they thought it was by works not by promise. This is exactly what Paul is correcting.
Somehow the Klineians come to this passage and simply reinvent the judaistic mentality by saying it was a covenant of works, but not works unto salvation, but works unto inheritence. But this has nothing to do with Paul's argument here.

It isn't the easiest passage to understand, and it surely is one of those passages that made Peter say that some things in the writings of Paul were hard to understand.

My whole point about the schoolmaster, is that when Paul gets to that point in his argument he turns to the ceremonial character of the mosaic administration. I understand the qoute from Calvin to an extent. A true understanding of the judicial and moral law would show the Israelites that they had no righteousness, but this does not teach them justification by faith. It would teach them that they can't justify themselves, but if all they had was the moral and judicial law, they would not have been able to come to the conclusion of any type of salvation, but simply of judgement.

That it is clear that the school master is the restorative law is seen in Paul's arguing that it led them to justification by faith. Furthermore, he then says that it is now passed away when the object of faith is revealed, which is Christ. Again, what was the historic situation? the Judiazers were trying to make them observe the jewish ceremonies. This is why Paul moves on to say:

Gal. 4:9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?
Gal. 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
Gal. 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

They were trying to return unto the schoolmaster, going back to the rudiments, puting themselves in bondage again. And then he explains, they observe days and monts and seasons and years. He is afraid of them, because they are trying to go back under the ceremonial aspects of the law.

So again, I apologize for the confusion, I wasn't clear in my last post when I just said Gal 3 and didn't specify. I was specifically referring to the argument Dr. Clark used concerning the schoolmaster.

Herman Witsius wrote,

"That the expression to be of the law, and that, to be of the works of the law, are not in all respects the same; for, those may simply be said to be of the law, to whom pertained the giving of the law, Rom ix. 4. that is, the Jewish nation, to whom the law of God was delivered, and who, in consequence of that giving of the law, and of the covenant founded thereon, became what they are, a people peculiar to God.

But seeing works, on the business of justification, which was the dispute among the Galatians, are always set in direct opposition to faith, those who are of the works of the law, cannot be of justifying faith.

If you object, that the law is in like manner opposed to faith; I answer, the law has a twofold relation: a legal, strictly so called, as it contains the condition of justification, by a personal and proper obedience; and an evangelical, as, by its types and shadows, it leads to Christ. Whoever, according to the former relation, are of the law, are not heirs, Rom iv. 14. but whoever were of the law, so as to discover in it the gracious promises of the gospel, belonged to that seed of Abraham, to which the promise was declared.

And according to this different relation of the law, the apostle in a different sense says, that some of are the law; some who, because they want to be of the law, are not heirs; namely those, who reckon their works as a condition of righteousness with God, either for purification or satisfaction; and some again who are of the law, and yet are heirs; namely those, who suffer themselves to be led by the law, as a schoolmaster, to Christ. But works contradistinguised from faith, can have no other than an opposite relation in justification."

From the above quote taken from Witsius "The Economy", it does not sound as though he is advocating that the Jewish nation as a whole was placed under a republished covenant of works. But acknowledges those who are of the works of the law, as not heirs.

"In the last place, I do not imagine that either of these can be proved from any passage of scripture: either, that those can be called the true spiritual sons of Abraham, who are of the works of the law: or, that those, who, in faith and a good conscience, observe the precepts of the ceremonial law, can, on that account be said to be under the curse. I find Rom. iv. 16. is quoted as a proof of the former; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."

Rev. Winzer, it appears that what Witsius wrote here above is in agreement with what you have stated here below.

"I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity."

Am I understanding your position correctly?