Thread: Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF

Okay, for all of you gentlemen out there who are claiming that republication is a novel view, and that it cannot be found in earlier reformed writings, what will you do with these quotes from Herman Witsius' (1636-1708) Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man?


Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 47: "Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, whether it was a covenant of works or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe that in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works."

Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 48: "Secondly, we more especially remark, that when the law was given from Mt. Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of works."


He then goes on to discuss how the covenant at Sinai was neither formally the covenant of works with sinners on an individual basis, nor was it a covenant of grace. What does Witsius claim the Mosaic covenant to be then?


Vol. 2, book 4, sec. 54: "What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel (emphasis in original)..."


Grasping this concept only helps to make sense of what continued to happen between God and Israel regarding the promised land. Every time they messed up and broke the national covenant of works, things went south; when they obeyed, God rendered to them their due blessing. I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?

The citations that are provided above pretty much trash the following two statements (sorry, gents)

Originally Posted by Catechist

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.

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

"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."

Also, I just found this in Hodge's ST, vol. 2, p. 375 (Horton cites this in his end notes for chapter 5 of God of Promise):

"Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God.

First, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people...

Secondly, it contained... a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works..."

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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.

Dr Clark, I would be interested in understanding your position a bit more clearly -- would you say then that believers participating in the Mosiac administration were under the law as a covenant of works? Also, who was the head of this republished covenant of works? Still Adam? Now Moses? Somehow corporate Israel? Or with each Israelite individually?

Originally Posted by Archlute

Okay, for all of you gentlemen out there who are claiming that republication is a novel view, and that it cannot be found in earlier reformed writings, what will you do with these quotes from Herman Witsius' (1636-1708) Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man?


Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 47: "Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, whether it was a covenant of works or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe that in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works."

Vol. 2, book 4, sect. 48: "Secondly, we more especially remark, that when the law was given from Mt. Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of works."


He then goes on to discuss how the covenant at Sinai was neither formally the covenant of works with sinners on an individual basis, nor was it a covenant of grace. What does Witsius claim the Mosaic covenant to be then?


Vol. 2, book 4, sec. 54: "What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel (emphasis in original)..."


Grasping this concept only helps to make sense of what continued to happen between God and Israel regarding the promised land. Every time they messed up and broke the national covenant of works, things went south; when they obeyed, God rendered to them their due blessing. I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?

You can quote Wistius, or anyone else you want, it makes no difference to me. If they hold Kline's position they are just as wrong as he is. I challenge you to give scriptural evidence for this, don't just answer based upon your system.
I always find it strange that in these conversations, whenever someones Scriptural interpretation is challenged, they immediately go to Church history, and simply prove that someone else held the same error. So unless you claim that Wistius is the final aribiter of theological disputes, your response is sadly lacking.

Originally Posted by G.Wetmore

You can quote Wistius, or anyone else you want, it makes no difference to me. If they hold Kline's position they are just as wrong as he is. I challenge you to give scriptural evidence for this, don't just answer based upon your system.
I always find it strange that in these conversations, whenever someones Scriptural interpretation is challenged, they immediately go to Church history, and simply prove that someone else held the same error. So unless you claim that Wistius is the final aribiter of theological disputes, your response is sadly lacking.

First off, don't be such a hothead. My posts were answering the question that you posed of whether or not Witsius did in fact hold this position, and second, whether or not this view merely a "Klinean peculiarity". It had nothing to do at that point with the question of exegesis, merely whether or not this was an historically acceptable position. So I gave citations from both Witsius and Charles Hodge proving that, yes, Witsius did hold that view, and that, no, Kline was not the first to come up with it, so it cannot be termed a "Klinean peculiarity".

Second, this position is not one that can be proven one way or the other by a facile use of proof texts. It is a big picture question, namely, a systematic look at the whole of the Mosaic economy, covenants in general, and the thematic doctrines that we see coming out as we look at them. If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine, just realize that by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture, but rather are understood by inference from a number of passages. If you consistently take this hermeneutic you will eventually become a baptist by conviction; notice that most baptists reject many (some baptists reject all) of the doctrines that I made mention of above. It is not so easy to get a handle on every doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archlute

I honestly cannot figure out why some get so upset over this view when it seems to me that it really clarifies and makes sense of the bigger picture. What orthodoxy, can it be claimed, does this position distort or destroy?

Gabriel, I should have looked at your profile and surveyed your posts earlier, and I would have found the underlying problem that folk such as yourself have with this position.

You are a theonomist who is attending GPTS. The pastor who just about gave himself a myocardial infarction over this view when he thought I was even hinting at it is a recovering theonomist who also attended GPTS. By this I am able to explain two things:

The first is that (and I'm not saying that this holds true for everyone who attends GPTS) the few men who I have met who are graduates of that institution have a rigid view of how the languages work, and tend to be myopic proof-texters rather than more thoughtful, big picture, theologians. Again, not all, but it is a pattern that I have observed. This would explain your hesitancy to accept a view without a Scriptural proof, and apart from systematic inference.

The second, and in my opinion the more important factor, is that theonomists (current or recovering) hate the idea that the Mosaic economy could have been a national covenant of works, because it takes the wind out of their sails regarding the application of the Mosaic code to modern nations. If it was unique to their theocracy, then it is not necessarily valid to apply it to, say, the U.S., as one example.

I don't have a great desire to carry on this debate with papers and graduation looming large, so I'll leave this thread at that, and wish you all a great afternoon!

Originally Posted by Archlute

Gabriel, I should have looked at your profile and surveyed your posts earlier, and I would have found the underlying problem that folk such as yourself have with this position.

You are a theonomist who is attending GPTS. The pastor who just about gave himself a myocardial infarction over this view when he thought I was even hinting at it is a recovering theonomist who also attended GPTS. By this I know two things:

The first is that (and I'm not saying that this holds true for everyone who attends GPTS) the few men who I have met who are graduates of that institution have a rigid view of how the languages work, and tend to be myopic proof-texters rather than more thoughtful, big picture, theologians. Again, not all, but it is a pattern that I have observed. This would explain your hesitancy to accept a view without a Scriptural proof, and apart from systematic inference.

The second, and in my opinion the more important factor, is that theonomists (current or recovering) hate the idea that the Mosaic economy could have been a national covenant of works, because it takes the wind out of their sails regarding the application of the Mosaic code to modern nations. If it was unique to their theocracy, then it is not necessarily valid to apply it to, say, the U.S., as one example.

I don't have a great desire to carry on this debate with papers and graduation looming large, so I'll leave this thread at that, and wish you all a great afternoon!

Adam,

Please work on you papers primarily - it is more important.

But you should avoid making statementns like that above. As an non-GPTS student (RTS Jackson, thank you) what you have said is unfair and untrue. I could just as easily (and in my mind with greater accuracy) have said Westminster West graduates are unthinking Klineans who have an overly Lutheran view of the Law, and that would be untrue and unfair.


At the same time, Gabriel, I would invite you to ask Dr. Pipa (or Drs. Shaw or others) how to properly discuss this matter. You obviously are missing the point in several areas, as your interaction with me (a non-Klinean!) on Galatians 3. My point was that Paul's use of "law" is consistent in all of Galatians 3, and that the early portion of Galatians 3 makes it impossible to view 3:23 as being the ceremonial law alone. For evidence supporting my exegesis (which I have done, having just preached through Galatians), I provided a spot on quote from Calvin. You chose not to respond to the exegesis or citation at all.


I say this not to win an argument or be critical, but to help yopu in thinking through this. If you doubt my sincerity, as Dr. Pipa about my motives.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Adam,

Please work on you papers primarily - it is more important.

But you should avoid making statements like that above. As an non-GPTS student (RTS Jackson, thank you) what you have said is unfair and untrue. I could just as easily (and in my mind with greater accuracy) have said Westminster West graduates are unthinking Klineans who have an overly Lutheran view of the Law, and that would be untrue and unfair.

Thanks for the admonishment, Fred, you're right on both counts. I will now apologize for that unfair cut, and get back to work.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Thanks for the admonishment, Fred, you're right on both counts. I will now apologize for that unfair cut, and get back to work.

You are welcome, and I will be praying for you today as you complete the important work of the end of a term.

God bless you!

I guess I don't need to "weigh-in" ... (MDiv. GPTS, 2001)

Forgive and forget, I always say...

Hi Casey,

see:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheses.php

rsc

Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian

Dr Clark, I would be interested in understanding your position a bit more clearly -- would you say then that believers participating in the Mosiac administration were under the law as a covenant of works? Also, who was the head of this republished covenant of works? Still Adam? Now Moses? Somehow corporate Israel? Or with each Israelite individually?

Originally Posted by Catechist

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

Hi Kevin. Thankyou for the excerpts from Witsius. I think it's more a case that I'm in agreement with Witsius, as he was one of the men I studied to arrive at the conclusion which I have stated here.

Archlute, note carefully what Witsius says is republished: "we observe that in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works." By this it is not meant that the law was given as a covenant of works to Israel. Witsius specifically concludes, "The covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works" (Economy, 2:184). Rather, "the carnal Israelites, not adverting to God's purpose or intention, as they ought, mistook the true meaning of that covenant, embraced it as a covenant of works, and by it sought for righteousness" (ibid., 184, 185).

As noted previously, those divines who speak of a republished covenant of works do not mean that the law was specifically given as a means of self-justification, but only that certain elements of the covenant of works were revived, and that for the purpose of showing man's condemnation in a state of nature. "Do this and live," "Cursed is the man that continueth in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them," are elements which were part and parcel of the covenant of works. Moreover, the same elements are published in the gospel: "He that believeth not is damned." See the Marrow of Modern Divinity for a clear explanation of this point.

He also states on 2:185 that it was not a formal covenant of grace either. On p.186 he connects it to Israel as a national covenant, not individual, and states that it was neither formally one or the other, but it is clear that there was a republication of the CoW principle on a national level during this administration. As I noted, Hodge believed the same.

It seems that one of the sticking points in this discussion is that one side keeps their focus upon the individual, and the other the national aspect of the covenant. Those who see it primarily with reference to the individual dislike the republication idea, but others see the events at Horeb to be a constituting of a covenanted nation where the focus is upon the collective people. That being said, I have no problem with a republication of the CoW, on that theocratic level, as it explains quite well what would be the future of Israel's history.

Originally Posted by Archlute

First off, don't be such a hothead. My posts were answering the question that you posed of whether or not Witsius did in fact hold this position, and second, whether or not this view merely a "Klinean peculiarity". It had nothing to do at that point with the question of exegesis, merely whether or not this was an historically acceptable position. So I gave citations from both Witsius and Charles Hodge proving that, yes, Witsius did hold that view, and that, no, Kline was not the first to come up with it, so it cannot be termed a "Klinean peculiarity".

Second, this position is not one that can be proven one way or the other by a facile use of proof texts. It is a big picture question, namely, a systematic look at the whole of the Mosaic economy, covenants in general, and the thematic doctrines that we see coming out as we look at them. If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine, just realize that by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture, but rather are understood by inference from a number of passages. If you consistently take this hermeneutic you will eventually become a baptist by conviction; notice that most baptists reject many (some baptists reject all) of the doctrines that I made mention of above. It is not so easy to get a handle on every doctrine.

Firstly, this post sounds a lot more hotheaded than anything I wrote to you.

Secondly, I never made any statement about what Wistius believed.

Thirdly, I never said give an "explicit" Biblical passage. I did ask for Biblical warrant, those are two completely different things. For some reason you call me a "myopic proof texter" because I think that what you believe needs to be backed up with Scripture. Well I am glad to be called a proof texter, because I believe that whatever I think about Scripture can't come from my own mind, but must be able to be proved from God's word. I don't think that this is simply done by quoting one verse, but it has to be shown from Scripture. I don't believe that I said anything that makes you say I am "myopic" in my argumentation. Your characterization of me as

If you want to take the "I don't see an explicit passage of Scripture proving it, therefore, I refuse to believe it" that's fine

is sadly unwarranted.

you then say:

by this logic you will also have to do away with doctrines like the inclusion of children in baptism, the covenant of redemption, the invisible church, a Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and numerous other doctrines that are not explicitly laid out in Scripture

And by the way, I do think that I can argue for those positions from Scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold to them.

I have a feeling that you really are a proof texter at heart. Unless you believe that you can hold to any doctrines you want and not defend them from Scripture, in which case I would simply say that we hold to a different religion, because I don't believe that we have the right to invent God according to our own whims, but I am confident that you don't either. So lets just stop the name calling.

All I am asking for is some Scriptural argument for you case, not just an assertion that it is a systematic doctrine, because even systematic doctrines must come from Scripture. As the WCF teaches, our doctrines must either be expilicity taught in Scripture, or be derived from Scripture by good and necessary concequences.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I guess I don't need to "weigh-in" ... (MDiv. GPTS, 2001)

Forgive and forget, I always say...

Sorry, Bruce. I meant no ill towards you by that comment.

Wouldn't it be great to have intercollegiate sports competitions between the various Reformed seminaries over the breaks, in order to "work out our differences"?

(or how about the Reformed vs. Fuller, et al??? )

Originally Posted by Archlute

He also states on 2:185 that it was not a formal covenant of grace either. On p.186 he connects it to Israel as a national covenant, not individual, and states that it was neither formally one or the other, but it is clear that there was a republication of the CoW principle on a national level during this administration. As I noted, Hodge believed the same.

Witsius was amongst a minority who believed it was a "mixed" covenant. I haven't studied Cocceius, but I suspect this is one of the areas where Witsius was mediating for the Cocceian school. Either way, there is no republication of the covenant of works in Witsius, only of certain elements of the covenant of works. Hodge followed Turretin in stating that it was essentially a covenant of grace. This is the standard reformed position.

Originally Posted by G.Wetmore

Firstly, this post sounds a lot more hotheaded than anything I wrote to you.

Secondly, I never made any statement about what Wistius believed.

Thirdly, I never said give an "explicit" Biblical passage. I did ask for Biblical warrant, those are two completely different things. For some reason you call me a "myopic proof texter" because I think that what you believe needs to be backed up with Scripture. Well I am glad to be called a proof texter, because I believe that whatever I think about Scripture can't come from my own mind, but must be able to be proved from God's word. I don't think that this is simply done by quoting one verse, but it has to be shown from Scripture. I don't believe that I said anything that makes you say I am "myopic" in my argumentation. Your characterization of me as is sadly unwarranted.

you then say:
And by the way, I do think that I can argue for those positions from Scripture. If I didn't, I wouldn't hold to them.

I have a feeling that you really are a proof texter at heart. Unless you believe that you can hold to any doctrines you want and not defend them from Scripture, in which case I would simply say that we hold to a different religion, because I don't believe that we have the right to invent God according to our own whims, but I am confident that you don't either. So lets just stop the name calling.

All I am asking for is some Scriptural argument for you case, not just an assertion that it is a systematic doctrine, because even systematic doctrines must come from Scripture. As the WCF teaches, our doctrines must either be expilicity taught in Scripture, or be derived from Scripture by good and necessary concequences.

Whatever, Gabe. You're not interacting with the material from Witsius and Hodge that I posted, nor my analysis of your position, and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you. Believe what you'd like, I've got more important things to do right now. Adios.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Witsius was amongst a minority who believed it was a "mixed" covenant. I haven't studied Cocceius, but I suspect this is one of the areas where Witsius was mediating for the Cocceian school. Either way, there is no republication of the covenant of works in Witsius, only of certain elements of the covenant of works. Hodge followed Turretin in stating that it was essentially a covenant of grace. This is the standard reformed position.

Well, Rev. Winzer, you're asserting one thing, but when I look at the statements from those men that I highlighted above it seems to me that they held differently. That Witsius was holding a mediating position for Cocceius is just speculation.

I would really like to see someone interact with this on the national level, as I made mention of above, and how that would pose a problem to the CoG. It seems to me that having the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the CoW on a national level with Israel does not preclude it from being administered within the CoG.

Archlute, you have set out to defend Kline's notion on the basis that it has reformed precursors. It has been shown clearly that the one person you quote -- Herman Witsius -- did not believe it was a national covenant of works. You have no reformed precursors for Kline's opinion. That is the fact of the matter.

Mr. Myer,

You say:

Whatever, Gabe. You're not interacting with the material from Witsius and Hodge that I posted, nor my analysis of your position, and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you.

I actually did think I was interacting with your "analysis" of my position. That is, I was just pointing out that you unjustly misrepresented my position. You attributed things to me which I never said, and do not believe. And you threw in a little name calling, just for fun.

And all because I asked for Biblical warrant for your position.

I don't feel as though that is a very loving or fair response to have with a fellow Christian who disagrees with you.

Book IV, Chap IV, XLIX Witsius writes, "We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek righteousness and salvation."

Though Witsius asserts repetition in some respects, it was not a repeating of the covenant of works which he clearly distinguishes.

For example, Book iv, Chap iv, LI Witsius writes, "the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because they cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes,. 2ndly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3rdly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance."

The national covenant made with Israel was not the covenant of works. But as Witsius writes subsequently in LIV, "It was a national covenant between God and Israel..." I don't think Witsius would contradict what he just wrote, nor does he diminish his principle caveats when he states that the national covenant made with Israel is not the covenant of works; though through synecdoche, repetition is observed, in part, but not in kind or administration. The covenant of works before the fall was peculiar to Adam as he represented his posterity. Never again will the covenant of works be repeated in such kind or administration. When the attempted republication is made in kind or administration, we abuse the legitimate function of substitution.

What good can be done or practical application attained, asserting a republished covenant of works based upon the Adamic covenant of works. The covenant at Sinai is clearly a consequent, "both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither one or the other."

Perfect obedience is replaced by sincere obedience, which in turn, is grace, but not one and the same.

Overstating principles such that a repetition of the covenant of works equates to a repeating of the covenant of works, in the same sense, is an abuse of terms. It is against the nature of the covenant of works. See also Book 1, Chap. ix, XX.

For those who speak of the republished covenant of works, do you do so under the umbrella of repetition or of repeating? Too much of the language in the above posts, appears to mix the two to too great a degree, which is unfortunate.
__________________
Kevin Barrow
Lynden, WA
Worshipping @
URC Lynden WA

Hi Kevin,

You make a good point. Witsius was making the same point as WCF 19 (which opens with a full restatement of the covenant of works! and closes with a denial that any sinner can obey this law unto justification after the fall).

Thus, Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works in one sense and not in another. As a way of justification, for sinners, the law is abrogated. Nevertheless, the substance of the creational law (WCF 19) was re-stated with the first use in view, to drive the Israelites to Christ.

In that sense, there is little doubt that the Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works. The antecedent of "this law" in WCF 19.2 is clearly the covenant of works in 19.1.

The question remains whether there was any sense in which the
covenant of works was republished to Israel as a national covenanted people relative to the land.

The principle of republication is widely attested in the earlier Reformed literature. In addition to the rough citations/quotations I've provided, I've also offered references to other primary texts. It is also found in Cartwright and Rollock (if I haven't cited them already).

The question is, what do we do with this thread in earlier Reformed theology? Do we conclude that it was mistaken or do we modify it and use it to try to address an unfinished element of Reformed theology?

I prefer the latter move.

We need to recognize that the republication occurred post lapsum and to those to whom the covenant of grace had been promulgated. So, no advocate of republication of whom I'm aware, thinks that the terms of the covenant of works in republication were identical to those ante lapsum.

I think it's helpful to consider republication relative to the pedagogical, civil, and moral uses of the law. The same law performs multiple functions simultaneously in the life of national Israel.

In favor of some idea of republication is the fact that Israel was ultimately expelled from Jerusalem and lost his status as the national covenanted people on the basis of his disobedience. This is an expression of the legal principle.

Anybody here read about NCT? it seems to answer all the questions coming up in this post. http://ids.org/ids/index.php.

NCT is a significant departure from confessional Reformed theology. Strictly speaking, it isn't "covenant theology" at all, since it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible.

On NCT principles, there is literally nothing in principle to be gained from the Old Testament. It is useful for one thing: historical data. It has as much relevance to a "New Covenant" believer as the Apocrypha. If all a "New Covenant" believer has is the New Testament, in fact if all he has is Acts and the letters, he has all the Bible he really needs. The gospels are significant for the facts of Jesus life and ministry, but the New Covenant only comes into effect once Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper, and is followed by the complex of events that was his death, burial, and resurrection (the necessary bloodletting for the creation of this covenant, and the confirmation of its acceptance by God by his raising Christ from the dead).

NCT's "theology of (biblical) law" is thoroughly erroneous. (BTW, just because someone manages consistency doesn't validate his position; a man may be consistently wrong). NCT's view of the relations between the historic covenant arrangements of redemptive history are quite dispensational. There is no appreciation for the unity of the Covenant of Grace, or the fact that we belong to one and the same covenant as Abraham.

I think that NCT is basically a reaction against Reformed Baptist confessionalism. R-Bs were those who basically accepted the Covenant Theology of the Reformation, so far as it taught a bi-covenant scheme (Covenant of Works/ Covenant of Grace), of course without the unity of the sign. Over time, Baptists in the US generally moved away from the covenant theology of the Reformation entirely (and in much of Baptistry, Reformed soteriology as well).

As time has progressed, there has been a serious effort on the part of Founders, etc., to regain some lost ground, and that move necessitates a return to a view of the unity of the Covenant of Grace. However, not everyone who has bought into Reformed soteriology (TULIP) has also been willing to become "whole Bible" Christians again. Hence, the rationale behind NCT.

I would call NCT the latest (radical) attempt to construct a version of the church that uses only the New Testament (New Covenant document) as the basis for understanding it. They wish to retain what they think previous Baptist theology has gotten right, i.e baptism for professors, TULIP, certain elements of dispensationalism. IOW, they want to "purify" Baptist theology.

If you are Presbyterian or ContinentalReformed, NCT will not be helpful at all in answering our theological questions. If you are a Confessional Baptist, I don't think you will want to take this road away from your historic connections to the Reformation.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

In favor of some idea of republication is the fact that Israel was ultimately expelled from Jerusalem and lost his status as the national covenanted people on the basis of his disobedience. This is an expression of the legal principle.

Dr. Clark, I disagree with you. Israel did not lose his status as the covenant people because he failed to obey a covenant of works! The Jewish people were judged, and were cut out of the covenant because of unbelief! It was because they didn't have faith. Their sinful rebellion was simply indicative of their heart.

Notice again what Paul says of this in Romans. In speaking concerning Israel's being cut out of the covenant he says this:

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.
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.

The Jewish people were judged because they sought to establish their own righteousness. They tried to follow God's law as if it were by works, and not by faith. They tried to use God's law to establish their own righteousness, and refused to submit themselves to God's righteousness. In short, they were judged for unbelief.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

the substance of the creational law (WCF 19) was re-stated with the first use in view, to drive the Israelites to Christ.

In that sense, there is little doubt that the Sinaitic law was a republication of the covenant of works.

Dr. Clark,

With all due respect, I think you might want to repeal this argument. If that reasoning is followed, the new covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. The new covenant surely teaches the moral law, and drives us to Christ. According to your argument, that would therefore mean: "In that sense, there is little doubt that the New Covenant was a republication of the covenant of works.

Are you really sure you want to use this argument?

Gabriel,

I don't accept the major premise of your criticism.

When Paul (2 Cor 3) and Hebrews (7-10) contrast the the Old and New Covenants they are contrasting that epoch that began with Moses with that which was inaugurated by Christ.

As I understand redemptive history, the distinctive aspect of the Old/Mosaic Covenant was the legal/typological/temporary/national element that was (Gal 3) superimposed upon the Abrahamic.

It was that legal/temporary/typological/national element that was repealed in the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a re-articulation of the Abrahamic (and first Noahic) covenants without the typological elements inherent to them.

We cannot say that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was legal relative to justification -- that would be dispensatiionalism!-- but it was clearly legal in some respects. WCF 19 recognizes all of the aspects that I've listed here. They are all abrogated.

What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.

Thus we don't pit Israel's relation to the Abrahamic against his relation to the Mosaic. It was the latter that was abrogated, however. Thus the distinctly Mosaic aspects were temporary in a way that the Abrahamic were not.

rsc

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Gabriel,

I don't accept the major premise of your criticism.

When Paul (2 Cor 3) and Hebrews (7-10) contrast the the Old and New Covenants they are contrasting that epoch that began with Moses with that which was inaugurated by Christ.

As I understand redemptive history, the distinctive aspect of the Old/Mosaic Covenant was the legal/typological/temporary/national element that was (Gal 3) superimposed upon the Abrahamic.

It was that legal/temporary/typological/national element that was repealed in the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a re-articulation of the Abrahamic (and first Noahic) covenants without the typological elements inherent to them.

We cannot say that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was legal relative to justification -- that would be dispensatiionalism!-- but it was clearly legal in some respects. WCF 19 recognizes all of the aspects that I've listed here. They are all abrogated.

What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.

Thus we don't pit Israel's relation to the Abrahamic against his relation to the Mosaic. It was the latter that was abrogated, however. Thus the distinctly Mosaic aspects were temporary in a way that the Abrahamic were not.

rsc

This is how I see it, NCT was just bashed here as being dispensational which is not true at all. Dr. Clark has stated in general the framework of NCT as I see it. I see the writer of Hebrews plainly showing appropriate discontinuity between the 2 covenants. I would like to have a covenentalist explain away the clear language in Hebrews.

Hi Prof. Clark,

"The principle of republication is widely attested in the earlier Reformed literature. In addition to the rough citations/quotations I've provided, I've also offered references to other primary texts. It is also found in Cartwright and Rollock (if I haven't cited them already).

The question is, what do we do with this thread in earlier Reformed theology? Do we conclude that it was mistaken or do we modify it and use it to try to address an unfinished element of Reformed theology?"

Prof. Clark, I would like to know how you understand the earlier Reformed literature in light of their practical application of national covenanting. I think their practice lends a great deal to the interpretation of their principles.

For Example, the National Covenant of Scotland comes in view as well as the Solemn League and Covenant. Robert Rollock being party to the first and the Westminster Divines also, from Scotland, who were instrumental in WCF ch.19.

These covenants were not a republication of the covenant of works but were National Covenants premised upon the covenant of grace, yet not formally the covenant of grace, for the participating nations. Do you believe these covenants were lawful national covenants?

Samuel Rutherford, writes, "Hence, the clear difference betwixt the external visible and national covenanting of the people of old, when they were brought out of the Land of Egypt; And the internal and personal (though it may be visible also) covenanting with God. This under the new testament is a new covenant, and all the old shadows are abolished: the former is old."

"Because he chose (with a covenant choice) the Jews and their seed, Deut. 4:37. Deut 10:15. Gen 17.7 then he must be the God of their seed. But he choseth with a covenant choice, and calling the nations, Isa 2:2,3. All the kindreds of the earth under the new testament, Psalm 22:27. All Egypt and Assyria under the New Testament. Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hand, Isa. 19:29. All the kingdoms of the world are the Lords, and his sons, and he reigns in them, by his word and gospel, as the seventh soundeth, Rev. 11:15. all the Gentiles are his, Isa 60: 1,2,3,4. Mal 1:11, All the ends of the earth, and heathen, Psal 2: 8,9. Psal 72:7,8,9,10."

Would you conclude that the WCF republishes the covenant of works in new testament times. I do not believe it is so, yet I do believe that the national covenanting which did exist, and will exist in the future, is basd upon promises of scripture as quoted above.

The application being, they extended the idea of national covenanting on the basis of the promise onto the Gentiles nations which stems from the original covenant made with Israel, not from the covenant of works, per se, which is abolished.

I like what you stated, when you spoke of an unfinished element of reformed theology, which is clearly in view, as far I understand the original intent of these earlier reformed writers, which comes to fruition under the New Testament, complete with the promises attached to the nations.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

What further complicates things is that the Israelites were also participants in the Abrahamic covenant of which Moses was ALSO necessarily an administration. This means that, to the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Abrahamic as a type of salvation, it was also gracious. To the degree the land promise/tenure was related to the Mosaic typology, it was legal.

Dr Clark,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant was gracious in nature, while the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was legal in nature? Can you elaborate on that? What do you think of the typological element (earthly kingdom) in the Davidic covenant?

To me, it seems the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was an extension/fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant, I don't see a fundamental difference between the nature of the land promise in the two...

I don't think you are a NCT proponent, but it seems the "republication of CoW in typological sense" language has led to many misunderstanding, leading even to charges of dispensationalism. What do you think are the benefits of this view over the other view? Sorry for my imprecise language...

Blessings,

Originally Posted by A5pointer

NCT was just bashed here as being dispensational which is not true at all. Dr. Clark has stated in general the framework of NCT as I see it. I see the writer of Hebrews plainly showing appropriate discontinuity between the 2 covenants. I would like to have a covenentalist explain away the clear language in Hebrews.

Please allow a response.
1) I did not say NCT is "dispensational", which is a term open to a range of definition; to quote myself "it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible;" and "wish to retain ...certain elements of dispensationalism." Honestly, I don't know how anyone can go to the site recommended above by A5pointer, and if one accepts the self-description offered, not affirm the basic truthfulness of my comments.

If I say that confessional Baptist theology has a "covenantalist approach to interpreting the Bible," I should not be construed as asserting that he is thereby a "covenant theologian" in everything, including its paedo-baptist hallmarks. There's a reason why they call their view "Baptist covenant-theology." AND there's a reason why "NEW covenant-theology" is called what it is.

Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law.

Who are the principal critics of NCT? Presbyterians? No, confessional Baptists. Why? Because they recognize this is a mediating view between dispensationalism and confessional Baptist theology. If the confessionalists are correct, then the NCT half-way-house is NOT the solution to dispensationalism, and it can only detract from a throughgoing reformation of the Baptist arena.

So, say what you will, stating facts isn't bashing, unless you are uncomfortable with those facts.

2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he means is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.

3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Please allow a response.
1) I did not say NCT is "dispensational", which is a term open to a range of definition; to quote myself "it adopts a fairly radical dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible;" and "wish to retain ...certain elements of dispensationalism." Honestly, I don't know how anyone can go to the site recommended above by A5pointer, and if one accepts the self-description offered, not affirm the basic truthfulness of my comments.

If I say that confessional Baptist theology has a "covenantalist approach to interpreting the Bible," I should not be construed as asserting that he is thereby a "covenant theologian" in everything, including its paedo-baptist hallmarks. There's a reason why they call their view "Baptist covenant-theology." AND there's a reason why "NEW covenant-theology" is called what it is.

Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law.

Who are the principal critics of NCT? Presbyterians? No, confessional Baptists. Why? Because they recognize this is a mediating view between dispensationalism and confessional Baptist theology. If the confessionalists are correct, then the NCT half-way-house is NOT the solution to dispensationalism, and it can only detract from a throughgoing reformation of the Baptist arena.

So, say what you will, stating facts isn't bashing, unless you are uncomfortable with those facts.

2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he means is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.

3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.

Read that web-site. They DENY all application of the 10 commandments. Sure, they affirm that most of the commands are "repeated" in the NT, and therefore we obey the SIMILAR commands of the NT. But they DENY that the 4th commandment is both MORAL and binding. They DENY that there is any such thing as a 3-part division of the Mosaic legislation. They couldn't care less (about these "artificial, arbitrary" distinctions), except that they say attachment to the 10 commandments is a snare, that it binds the one respecting them to the rest of the Law.

Good summary

2) Even if what Dr. Clark said was interpretable on NCT principles, it does not follow that what he means is the same thing that NCT teaches. I doubt sincerely that he would identify his view as substantially in agreement with NCT.
I will wait to hear from him, I am curious as to his answer

3) As for Hebrews and discontinutity, some argument needs to be set forth, or at least some textual reference to "clear language" (is there any part of Hebrews that ISN'T clear?) so that one can start interacting with it someplace, instead of guessing what is meant.

Sorry, I assumed you would know right where to look, bold for empasis, what I meant was you have some clear, straightforward language to exegete around to maintain the one covenant view.

A New Covenant
7For (P)if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8For finding fault with them, He says,
"(Q)BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT (R)A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9(S)NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10"(T)FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM (U)ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"(V)AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR (W)ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"(X)FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
(Y)AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

13When He said, "(Z)A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete (AA)But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Hello Bruce (from one Bruce to another),

Thanks for adding a passage with which to work.

The great distinction between the first/second-new, old-obsolete/new, covenant is the primary character of each: the old, or Siniatic, covenant was massively extrinsic, heavily typological, and prospective; whereas the new, or Christ-covenant is primarily intrinsic, fulfillment oriented, and eschatological.

There is a core to the old covenant--something that it has in common with the entire covenant-redemptive scheme begun in the Garden after the fall--which grows and develops right through to the new covenant: promise & fulfilment. Specifically, the promise to save his people from their sins. This promise isn't simply presented, then terminated at the end of each "covenant-era" and repristinated for a new era (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.). it is the same promise.

So, clearly there is something NOT *new* about the new covenant. No one is saved in any other way than ever they were previously. Nor would it be proper to say that God himself changes, or ever changed. And since he does not change, neither do his moral requirements. E.g. murder was wrong in the Garden, it was wrong after the Garden in Cain's day, it was wrong before Sinai, it was wrong after Sinai, it's wrong today, it will be wrong tomorrow, and it will be wrong to all eternity. The 6th Commandment is eternally valid.

So, it is proper to say that in terms of ethical requirements of God's people, the new covenant changes nothing. God's holiness is still the standard of perfection. And since even in Moses' day, the Law was not for the purpose of justification (Rom. 10:4ff), we also do not have a change there--as if it once was for justification, but isn't any more.

The sober fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people under the old covenant were not members of the elect according to grace (Rom. 9:27-29). Thus most of them were only in covenant with God in an outward, accidental sense, and not inwardly, substantively, by faith. The massive externals of the covenant both revealed truth to the faithful remnant, and blinded (or veiled, 2 Cor. 3:14) the minds of the faithless majority.

God declares to Jeremiah, even as the pitiful reality of human inability is put on display in the Exile, that a day is coming when there is going to be a difference--a big difference--in the effectiveness of God's covenant dealings. Why? Because he intends to remove the fault present in that majority ("them" Heb. 8:8) with whom he enters into covenant, he will be pouring out his Spirit in great abundance for much regeneration.

God has more elect in this age than in the previous age.

God has no more need of a national covenant (Rom. 9:4-5; 10:4), or massive, blinding/revealing rituals.

The Christ of the OT is no different from the Christ of the NT. The Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament has no essential difference to the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. We have more of it, greater revelation and realization of it.


Anyway, that's the discontinuity--the stripping away of the massive externals, the transformation of certain aspects, the new retrospective on the once-for-all sacrifice, the pouring out of the Spirit. But there are things about God and about his covenant-redemptive plan that do not--that cannot--change.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Hello Bruce (from one Bruce to another),

Thanks for adding a passage with which to work.

The great distinction between the first/second-new, old-obsolete/new, covenant is the primary character of each: the old, or Siniatic, covenant was massively extrinsic, heavily typological, and prospective; whereas the new, or Christ-covenant is primarily intrinsic, fulfillment oriented, and eschatological.

There is a core to the old covenant--something that it has in common with the entire covenant-redemptive scheme begun in the Garden after the fall--which grows and develops right through to the new covenant: promise & fulfilment. Specifically, the promise to save his people from their sins. This promise isn't simply presented, then terminated at the end of each "covenant-era" and repristinated for a new era (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.). it is the same promise.

So, clearly there is something NOT *new* about the new covenant. No one is saved in any other way than ever they were previously. Nor would it be proper to say that God himself changes, or ever changed. And since he does not change, neither do his moral requirements. E.g. murder was wrong in the Garden, it was wrong after the Garden in Cain's day, it was wrong before Sinai, it was wrong after Sinai, it's wrong today, it will be wrong tomorrow, and it will be wrong to all eternity. The 6th Commandment is eternally valid.

So, it is proper to say that in terms of ethical requirements of God's people, the new covenant changes nothing. God's holiness is still the standard of perfection. And since even in Moses' day, the Law was not for the purpose of justification (Rom. 10:4ff), we also do not have a change there--as if it once was for justification, but isn't any more.

The sober fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people under the old covenant were not members of the elect according to grace (Rom. 9:27-29). Thus most of them were only in covenant with God in an outward, accidental sense, and not inwardly, substantively, by faith. The massive externals of the covenant both revealed truth to the faithful remnant, and blinded (or veiled, 2 Cor. 3:14) the minds of the faithless majority.

God declares to Jeremiah, even as the pitiful reality of human inability is put on display in the Exile, that a day is coming when there is going to be a difference--a big difference--in the effectiveness of God's covenant dealings. Why? Because he intends to remove the fault present in that majority ("them" Heb. 8:8) with whom he enters into covenant, he will be pouring out his Spirit in great abundance for much regeneration.

God has more elect in this age than in the previous age.

God has no more need of a national covenant (Rom. 9:4-5; 10:4), or massive, blinding/revealing rituals.

The Christ of the OT is no different from the Christ of the NT. The Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament has no essential difference to the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. We have more of it, greater revelation and realization of it.


Anyway, that's the discontinuity--the stripping away of the massive externals, the transformation of certain aspects, the new retrospective on the once-for-all sacrifice, the pouring out of the Spirit. But there are things about God and about his covenant-redemptive plan that do not--that cannot--change.

Thank you for the thought ful reply. I will just suggest some conclusions I see in the texts and biblical theology, nothing fancy from me, I am a simple in my thinking.

1. The Mosaic Covenant had as its scope as to benefits/curses (1) God's special real presence with Israel in the land thus the comments to Moses to tell the people to go on without Him after their first breach (2) Blessings and Curses associated with that presence or lack of it (3) the blessings and curses were physical, temporal if you will and had nothing to do with Salvation Spiritually as we may call it. (4) This Mosaic covenant never had anything to do with the true saving covenant promised to Abraham which runs parallel to the Mosaic and certainly includes the remnant as I am sure we agree. (5) It is not denied by my understanding that the Mosaic although very distinct ontologically from the new is a well matched type/anti-type of the new. The Old is only physical and temporal in nature while the new is spiritual and eternal. (6) The covenant was kept or broken corporately by the nation and was not binding on individuals as to their eternal state spiritually.


As I read your post we are not eons apart in observations. I do though see the covenants(Mosaic and New) as being two totally different covenants with different objectives. I see the new in the promise to Abraham not Moses. Respectfully I must say that your reply on Hebrews does not deal with the language denoting 2 covenants. This Idea of the " the New is really the old just administered differently" does not do justice to the writer of Hebrews. Thank you again for indulging me.

I wrote in another thread, what I'm about to repeat here:
that there are two basic "approaches" to take to the Bible, or "stances". And our exchange here is more evidence of that difference. One approach starts in Genesis, and reads "through". (I am not necesarity speaking "literally", but the "manner" of approach.) Such is my approach. The other starts in the New Testament, and begins with certain assumptions presumed from it, and proceeds to read the OT in light of those. Such is the baptist approach, generally.

For example: The idea that the NC is spiritual/eternal, the OC is physical/temporal. My understanding is that this notion would have been utterly incomprehensible to any true believer, under any covenant administration in the Old Testament. An OT Israelite, someone who shared the faith of Abraham, living during (for instance) King Uzziah's term, would have rejected this concept upon his first hearing it (per Heb. 11:13-16). The covenant he belonged to as an Israelite would have taught him something completely different.

But if one starts with the idea (perhaps drawn from this text or that in the NT) that the NC is "spiritual" and that makes it different from the OT, then the OC must be physical. Take the Hebrews 8 text. It says that in the NC God will write his law on their hearts, and that no one will teach his neighbor "Know the Lord!" for they all will know him. So, perhaps at first glance one thinks "this is what MAKES the NC new." Is it? If you were saved in the OC, it had to be by regeneration, by the renewal of the law in the heart. Moreover, we live in the NC age today. Do we need the exhortation of the Word, "Know the Lord!"? Most assuredly. So on both these counts, the NC cannot be distinguished by a superficial reliance on these "markers".

Furthermore, since the new covenant is the same in substance with Abraham's covenant, how is it new with respect to the Siniatic when in substance it predates it? Wouldn't that make it an "older" covenant? After all, that is essentially what Paul says, Gal. 3:17. Abraham's covenant was "new" to the previous. Moses' was "new" to Abraham's. David's was "new" to Moses'. Every time God renews and refreshes his covenant it's *new*.

So what makes the new covenant new? We're back to the same question I was providing an answer for above. Hebrews 8:8 tells us what the problem was: "Finding fault with them..." THEY were non-regenerate, non-elect persons. Not all of them, but most of them. God could and did set up a covenant with them, a covenant which spiritual significance was hidden to most of them, because God did not give them new eyes to see, nor a heart to believe.

What is new about the new covenant? Simple. The majority/minority are flipped. The remnant is now the main body. I don't have search high and low under every pew in the church to find one, just one true brother in Christ.

And the Spirit of God is not being offered in an eydropper, but poured out like a waterfall. Its a copious rain. Note Ezek 36:26,27; 37:14,26,27; and of course Joel 2:28--These are parallel texts to the Jeremiah 31 passage cited in Hebrews.

And Christ brings in fulfillment. In a sense that is the "newest" factor of all, the fact that we look backward as well as forward. The fact that in him all things are NEW (Rev. 21:5). Actually, I think that the writer to the Hebrews has a much bigger context in mind than the keynote text he selects. Alone, it doesn't answer all the questions it raises, and it was never meant to. To fully answer the questions, the rest of Scripture (in particular the Scripture he possessed, the OT) must be brought to bear upon it, as I believe he intended. Only that kind of thinking will "do justice" to the writer of Hebrews, IMO.

Thank you. Blessings.

Hi Kevin,

I try to give a sketchy account of this on my site, in the theses on covenant theology. I don't want to repeat those here.

Prof. Clark, I would like to know how you understand the earlier Reformed literature in light of their practical application of national covenanting. I think their practice lends a great deal to the interpretation of their principles.

For Example, the National Covenant of Scotland comes in view as well as the Solemn League and Covenant. Robert Rollock being party to the first and the Westminster Divines also, from Scotland, who were instrumental in WCF ch.19.

There's no question that our forefathers were theocratic and that the Scots held to a national covenant. As I've said many times here and elsewhere (e.g., on the De Regno Christ blog and on the HB) I think that any attempt to establish an extra-canonical national covenant is a mistake.

I don't know that WCF 19 logically requires a national covenant.

I agree that the the Scottish National Covenants were not a republication. They understood that they were not national Israel.

Whatever criticisms I have of American Presbyterianism on worship and subscription, I agree with that tradition re the national covenant.

Would you conclude that the WCF republishes the covenant of works in new testament times. I do not believe it is so, yet I do believe that the national covenanting which did exist, and will exist in the future, is basd upon promises of scripture as quoted above.

No. That's the point of ch. 19. Republication was part and parcel of the temporary, typological, national Israelite covenant.

Polo,

No, I have not a shred of support for the so-called New Covenant Theology. I've made that clear here many times on this board.

It seems to me to exist principally to release Christians from obligation to the 4th commandment, a position I heartily reject.

You can hear a sketch of my approach to the Sabbath in the January WSC Faculty Conference lectures. They're available from the WSC bookstore

NCT may not actually be antinomian and dispensational but it is certainly on the same trajectory.

As for the Mosaic Covenant as a typological covenant of works being difficult, I agree that it is, but there is no approach to this question that is no problem free.

That's why I tried to make it clear that there are two parallel covenants operating in history simultaneously and that Israelites participated in BOTH at the same time. As I read Witsius vol 2 (not vol 1 as I said earlier) he makes the same point.

Some folk accuse anyone who identifies any strong discontinuity between Moses and Christ of being dispensational. This, of course, is nonsense.

In that case the writer to the Hebrews and Paul are dispensationalist for calling the Mosaic/Old Covenant inferior and fading etc.

Anyone who affirms the substantial unity of the covenant of grace from Gen 3:15 forward as I have done for years is not a dispensationalist.

rsc

Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo

Dr Clark,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant was gracious in nature, while the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was legal in nature? Can you elaborate on that? What do you think of the typological element (earthly kingdom) in the Davidic covenant?

To me, it seems the land promise in the Mosaic covenant was an extension/fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant, I don't see a fundamental difference between the nature of the land promise in the two...

I don't think you are a NCT proponent, but it seems the "republication of CoW in typological sense" language has led to many misunderstanding, leading even to charges of dispensationalism. What do you think are the benefits of this view over the other view? Sorry for my imprecise language...

Blessings,

Good summary Rev. Buchanan.

Bruce (Breunig) - this is a Confessional board. There's good reason for that. I used to wonder why folks were stodgy about that - thinking that "...why I believe the Scriptures but they trust in their Confession...."

I now view it as: "I confess the Scriptures along with the Church...."

That is, while I should understand the Scriptures and study them - my study is not done on a desert island but in the context of the Church who has been gifted with Pastors and Teachers whose job it is to teach and bring us all to the unity of the faith (i.e. a common Confession).

NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural. Those who trust their own interpretations of the Word above the centuries-old testimony of the Church will never understand that the two statements are complementary.

I'm saying this to be clear: we do not promote un-Confessional theology here. Not only is NCT un-Confessional but the men that teach it ought to repent and learn that it's not "me and the Bible" but the "Church confessing the authority of the Bible".

Dear Prof. Clark,

I appreciate your patience with me.

I think the point I am making, is that Israel was not included under the curse in the same way which was peculiar in the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance.

Samuel Rutherford, said it this way, in his book, The Covenant of Life Opened, "But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works. The law as the Law or as a Covenant of Works is made with perfect men who need no mercy; But this covenant is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c. It is made with stiff-necked Israel Deut. 29 Deut 30.c. 31. c. 32. and that is called a covenant from the end and object, as motions are denominate from their end: for the end of the Lords pressing the law upon them was to bring them under a blessed necessity to seek salvation in their true city of Refuge Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of spiritual bondage of sin."