Thread: Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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".

Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say "NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural." Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.

Respectfully, Bruce

Hi Kevin,

It depends upon which use of the covenant of works is in view. It was widely held that the covenant of works was abrogated as an actual way of justification.

When the older theologians spoke of republication I understand them to have been saying that the covenant of works was republished in the pedagogical use of the law to teach Israel the greatness of his sin and misery and drive him to faith in Christ. Thus, by "republication," they were saying the same thing Rutherford is saying in substance. Given the sense in which Rutherford used "covenant of works" (as in WCF ch 7 and ch 19)

I think we agree that the fall creates a major in change in the way Israel could relate to the law.

Clearly other writers in the same period did speak of republication of the covenant of works. Indeed, it's republication was a major proof of the initial covenant of works. It' always, however, mutatis mutandis - with the changes having been changed.

I'm proposing that, because of her one-off, absolutely unique, typological, temporary, national covenant status, Israel had an additional, typological relation to the law relative to the land. As I tell our congregation, national Israel was a sermon illustration. Israel's relation to the land was a great drama and the formal, legal basis for his forfeiture of the national covenant was disobedience grounded in unbelief.

Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It's a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works.

I think all civil entities are in an analogous covenant of works. I may be gracious to the city and not prosecute them for their every failure, and a cop may let me drive 40 in a 35, but we could and do sometimes hold each other accountable on a works basis. If the city's failures become chronic, I take them to court. If I don't mow my yard, the city fines me and I have to pay up or go to jail. Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more and I go off to jail or they have to begin performing their duties.

In strict justice, God might have executed the sanctions of the covenant of works immediately against Israel but, for the purposes of the giant, historical, temporary, sermon illustration, he was gracious. Nevertheless, the type of covenant under which Israel lived as national entity was formally legal, it was a suzerain-vassal treaty. Those same families also lived under a royal grant covenant that was wholly gracious relative to salvation and justification.

This is a good way to account for all of the conditional legal language found throughout the Pentateuch and for the conditional language inherent in the 10 words themselves: "that your days may be long in the land..."

The national, legal covenant was a ritual. Jesus ritually re-enacted at least aspects of Israel's history. Unlike Israel, Yahweh's adopted son, the true Son Jesus did meet the qualifications to be under a covenant of works. Israel was 40 years in the desert, Jesus was 40 days (without food). Israel gave in to temptation to grumble, Jesus did not. Jesus was the true Israel. He went down to Egypt and "out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matt 2). Israel (like Adam) polluted God's holy temple, but Jesus sanctified it and chased the devil out (twice!). Israel (like Adam) made false covenants with the nations and went after their gods. Jesus kept covenant with his father and called the nations to repent and believe. He fulfilled not only the terms of the covenant of works with Adam (as the last Adam) and the terms of the pactum salutis (John 17) but also the terms of the national covenant. He kept the law, he served and loved God with all his faculties and his neighbor as himself. He obeyed and offered a right sacrifice.

rsc

Originally Posted by Catechist

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."

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say "NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural." Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.

Respectfully, Bruce

Hi Bruce,
Please allow me to try and nuance what Rich has said. We use the (several) Confessions here as parameters for our discussion. None of us want to be guilty of placing man-made documents on par with the Scripture.

Having made that point clear, by relying on the Confessions (which do contain certain differences, noticably on baptism) we are "in conversation" with the church's interpretation of Scripture in history. So the basis for our discussions NOW are a frame of generally agreed-upon theology. So when Rich (or anyone else here) says that some non-Confessional view is, in his opinion, unScriptural he's really saying no more than "the Confessions are RIGHT in their interpretation/expression of the correct meaning of the Scripture in this area."

In other words: there are more-vital and less-vital areas of every Confession. These days, a man can often hold non- or anti-Confessional views on eschatology, and yet those views may not appear to challenge the fundamental integrity of the Confessional interpretation of Scripture as a whole. So what about NCT? Well, all the Reformed Confessions rely to one degree or another on the Covenant Theology/History of Redemption hermeneutical stance, growing out of the Reformation. A fundamental agreement of all these Confessions--even the Baptist--is that there is ONE Covenant of Grace, though it is administered differently at different times.

NCT certainly bears similarities to Confessional Baptist covenant theology, but it also draws from disparate sources/wells as it presents its "picture" to the world. I'm not as familar with the whole movement as are some of the Confessional Baptists, who are much closer to its sphere. But clearly some of NCT's influences come up from non- and anti-Confessional roots, and so deviate from the basis-for-unity that we've tried to establish here.

I hope this clarifies some.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more...

I laughed right out loud.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Hi Bruce,
Please allow me to try and nuance what Rich has said. We use the (several) Confessions here as parameters for our discussion. None of us want to be guilty of placing man-made documents on par with the Scripture.

Having made that point clear, by relying on the Confessions (which do contain certain differences, noticably on baptism) we are "in conversation" with the church's interpretation of Scripture in history. So the basis for our discussions NOW are a frame of generally agreed-upon theology. So when Rich (or anyone else here) says that some non-Confessional view is, in his opinion, unScriptural he's really saying no more than "the Confessions are RIGHT in their interpretation/expression of the correct meaning of the Scripture in this area."

In other words: there are more-vital and less-vital areas of every Confession. These days, a man can often hold non- or anti-Confessional views on eschatology, and yet those views may not appear to challenge the fundamental integrity of the Confessional interpretation of Scripture as a whole. So what about NCT? Well, all the Reformed Confessions rely to one degree or another on the Covenant Theology/History of Redemption hermeneutical stance, growing out of the Reformation. A fundamental agreement of all these Confessions--even the Baptist--is that there is ONE Covenant of Grace, though it is administered differently at different times.

NCT certainly bears similarities to Confessional Baptist covenant theology, but it also draws from disparate sources/wells as it presents its "picture" to the world. I'm not as familar with the whole movement as are some of the Confessional Baptists, who are much closer to its sphere. But clearly some of NCT's influences come up from non- and anti-Confessional roots, and so deviate from the basis-for-unity that we've tried to establish here.

I hope this clarifies some.

Bruce thank you, I suppose more vital/less vital can be very subjective. I don't see discussion on covenant view doing final violence to essentials. As I have said I am compelled by the biblical arguement of NCT. It seems to be a new lable and has a few faces. I believe you will find Carson and Moo amoung subscibers to forms of it. If I am reading Mr. R.Scott right he seems to lean that way. I hope he comments. As far as discussion of covenant the ones who seem to go wild are the sabatarians as NCT throws the yoke of the decalouge off in favor of the law of Christ alone, love the lord your God and your neighbor. I desire to be teachable in pursuing the truth, I just am not persuaded that covenentalism fits biblical theology ot he texts. R. Scott any thought on this?

Bruce,

I think this is the second time I've said this in this thread:

I repudiate NCT as quasi-dispensational antinomianism.

I am totally committed to the sabbatarian theology of the Westminster Standards.

rsc

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Bruce thank you, I suppose more vital/less vital can be very subjective. I don't see discussion on covenant view doing final violence to essentials. As I have said I am compelled by the biblical arguement of NCT. It seems to be a new lable and has a few faces. I believe you will find Carson and Moo amoung subscibers to forms of it. If I am reading Mr. R.Scott right he seems to lean that way. I hope he comments. As far as discussion of covenant the ones who seem to go wild are the sabatarians as NCT throws the yoke of the decalouge off in favor of the law of Christ alone, love the lord your God and your neighbor. I desire to be teachable in pursuing the truth, I just am not persuaded that covenentalism fits biblical theology ot he texts. R. Scott any thought on this?

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say "NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural." Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.

Respectfully, Bruce

Bruce,

What is shocking these days, actually, is the number of people that call themselves "Reformed" that are shocked by the idea that "me and the Bible-ism" is not what Sola Scriptura actually means. Please read again carefully what I wrote and what Rev. Buchanan wrote.

Here is a good article by Rev. McMahon on the same subject:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/...aScriptura.htm

The current issue of Modern Reformation also takes up the proper understanding of Sola Scriptura.

We are brethren within a Confessing Body of believers. The Church is not to be a collection of individuals with as many confessions as there are members.

My intent here is to teach and edify. If you want to learn what it means to be Reformed, this is a good place to start. Many of the major controversies today are desires for novelty and unwillingness to submit to the Church's role to testify to the Truth of the Scriptures.

Dear Prof. Clark,

Thank you for your respectful dialogue.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

It depends upon which use of the covenant of works is in view. It was widely held that the covenant of works was abrogated as an actual way of justification.

Agreed. Rom 3:20,21 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets

When the older theologians spoke of republication I understand them to have been saying that the covenant of works was republished in the pedagogical use of the law to teach Israel the greatness of his sin and misery and drive him to faith in Christ. Thus, by "republication," they were saying the same thing Rutherford is saying in substance. Given the sense in which Rutherford used "covenant of works" (as in WCF ch 7 and ch 19)

Agreed in part, if by Israel you mean elect Israel, then we are agreed (WCF 7:5). The pedagogical use of the law was made specifically for the elect.

Rutherford markedly singled out this argument in the Covenant of Life Opened (I Cor. 10:1-4, Heb 11:13), distinguishing them from the reprobate, “Who persecute the Godly the sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adams dayes, and now is to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble, Ex.20:20, Fear not (saith Moses) God is come to prove you (not to damne you) and therefore Calvin solidely observeth that Paul, (2 Cor. 3), speaks with less respect of the Law and the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affection of the Law ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel….but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, Exod. 29:20, and chase them to Christ.”

I think we agree that the fall creates a major in change in the way Israel could relate to the law.

From what I understand from various writers, the fall created a major change in the way elect Israel related to the law. Reprobate Israel related to the law in the same way Adam did, as Rutherford noted above. And (WCF 7:3) “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second.” Nor were the accidents of the law peculiar to the Mosaic economy only, for circumcision was first commanded to Abraham and his house, for the sake of the elect. The elect obtained the promises by approaching the law from afar-off (Heb.11:13). Israel at large had a relationship to the covenant of works that had prescribed law as law, bondage and death, as seen also in Adam.

As to the terms and nature of the covenant of works, it was not republished as to obtain life through works of sincere obedience nor ever changed its terms and nature as to require anything less but perfect obedience. Rutherford writes, “this covenant was made with Israel only, Exod. 20, Deut 5.c.6. Deut6:5, 6:7.12. The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.” A clear distinction that agrees with the law as prescribed to elect Abraham and Israel in WCF 7:5, along with the pedagogical use and intent of the law.

Clearly other writers in the same period did speak of republication of the covenant of works. Indeed, it's republication was a major proof of the initial covenant of works. It' always, however, mutatis mutandis - with the changes having been changed.

But I propose that these changes were made for the elect’s sake. For Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moses. The nature of the covenant of works is peculiar to Adam and all of mankind, not just Israel republished. Moses was a mediator, a type of Christ. Neither does the covenant of works command any ceremonies, sacrifices, or any type of a mediator at all. If the covenant of works were republished, it no longer retained anything due to its nature with such changes.

Rutherford asserts, For the Lord expressly tells them, when he took them by the hand as his married people, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. He meant no other covenant then he made with Abraham, of believing, Gen. 15, and of walking before him and being perfect, Gen 17:1,2., which is somewhat more legall, as Moses and the lord expones it, Exod 2:24, Exod. 3:6, Exod. 20. 1,2. And he shows them, Lev 26, if in their enemies land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised heartsshall willingly accept of the punishment of their inquity Lev 26:42: then (saith the Lord) I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one he excludes the other. For to walk before the Lord required in Abrahams covenant Gen 17:1 is to walk in the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him. Deut 10:12-13 and Samuel, I Sam. 12:22, Joshua, Josh 24:22,23, 24, 25. And Mary, Luke 1:55, And Zacharias, ver. 70,72,73 refer to the covenant made with Abraham, and Deut 6. the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed.”

I'm proposing that, because of her one-off, absolutely unique, typological, temporary, national covenant status, Israel had an additional, typological relation to the law relative to the land. As I tell our congregation, national Israel was a sermon illustration. Israel's relation to the land was a great drama and the formal, legal basis for his forfeiture of the national covenant was disobedience grounded in unbelief.

I understand Rutherford to apply the typological relation of the law relative to the people of the Jews, all of which signified Christ to come, for the elect. As WCF 7:5 states, “under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignfying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elct in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”

The law as pressed upon Israel was not the covenant of works.

Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It's a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works.

The covenant of works WCF 19:2, “This law after the fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments…” But such a covenant of works cannot be applied to the elect of Israel, as in 19:6, “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works…” The administration of the covenant shadows are interpreted in (WCF 7:5) for the elect, inclusive of circumcision (Gen:17).

I think all civil entities are in an analogous covenant of works. I may be gracious to the city and not prosecute them for their every failure, and a cop may let me drive 40 in a 35, but we could and do sometimes hold each other accountable on a works basis. If the city's failures become chronic, I take them to court. If I don't mow my yard, the city fines me and I have to pay up or go to jail. Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more and I go off to jail or they have to begin performing their duties.

If the law be fulfilled by grace, we are justified by works. Nor are we in bondage to the dominion of the condemning law. But if we submit ourselves to every lawful ordinance of man for Christ’s sake, then we do well.

Rutherford, “For there can be none under the covenant of works, and also under the covenant of grace, for they are contrair dispensations, and contrair wayes of salvation.”

In strict justice, God might have executed the sanctions of the covenant of works immediately against Israel but, for the purposes of the giant, historical, temporary, sermon illustration, he was gracious. Nevertheless, the type of covenant under which Israel lived as national entity was formally legal, it was a suzerain-vassal treaty. Those same families also lived under a royal grant covenant that was wholly gracious relative to salvation and justification.

I understand that Israel gained temporal merciful benefits because of God’s promises to the elect which were in Israel. When contrasting the covenant of grace with the legal civil covenant of works, Rutherford states, “There is no more reason to say, it was a civil covenant made with Abraham, because it distinguished Abrahams seed from other nations, and an earthly Covenant, because Canaan was promised to them, not to us, then to say there be two covenants of works, one made to Adam, with promise of an earthly Paradise, and another covenant of works to the Jews, with an earthly Canaan; and a third to these who in the gospel time are under the covenant of works.”

This is a good way to account for all of the conditional legal language found throughout the Pentateuch and for the conditional language inherent in the 10words themselves: "that your days may be long in the land..."

But to Israel at large, the conditional language was but a stumblingblock, The righteousness of faith is clearly distinguished from the righteousness of Law-doing. For so Paul, Rom 10:5-7 and Moses, Deut 30:11-14.

Rutherford, “The covenant of works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it. Exod. 24:8. And Moses took, the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words. Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See Heb 9:18-24.”

The national, legal covenant was a ritual. Jesus ritually re-enacted at least aspects of Israel's history. Unlike Israel, Yahweh's adopted son, the true Son Jesus did meet the qualifications to be under a covenant of works. Israel was 40 years in the desert, Jesus was 40 days (without food). Israel gave in to temptation to grumble, Jesus did not. Jesus was the true Israel. He went down to Egypt and "out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matt 2). Israel (like Adam) polluted God's holy temple, but Jesus sanctified it and chased the devil out (twice!). Israel (like Adam) made false covenants with the nations and went after their gods. Jesus kept covenant with his father and called the nations to repent and believe. He fulfilled not only the terms of the covenant of works with Adam (as the last Adam) and the terms of the pactum salutis (John 17) but also the terms of the national covenant. He kept the law, he served and loved God with all his faculties and his neighbor as himself. He obeyed and offered a right sacrifice.

I do not necessarily see how you’re good words, as written here above, speak to a republication of the covenant of works for Israel at large. Israel (like Adam) is under the original terms and nature of the covenant of works without any requirement to republish another (WCF 19:2). Christ fulfills the covenant of works as our kinsmen redeemer for his elect as promised under various accidents.

Rutherford, "And when God made the covenant with Abraham, Gen 17 and renewed the same, Deut. 29, he made it with these who were not yet standing, vs. 14,15, not with you only, &c, but virtually, radically with us Gentiles, who were not then born, as touching the substantials, for Priesthood, Law service, Types, Sacrifices, Circumcision, yea Baptism, the Lord's supper. Pastors, Teachers, Elders to rule, Deacons, were all accidents, to the substance of the Covenant, to wit, to believe in Christ and to obtain righteousness and Life by Christ."

Kevin,

Is it your understanding that the only category in which we can speak of the covenant of works is soteriological?

What was Israel's function as a national, corporate entity, in the history of salvation?

rsc

Originally Posted by Catechist

Dear Prof. Clark,

Thank you for your respectful dialogue.



Agreed. Rom 3:20,21 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets



Agreed in part, if by Israel you mean elect Israel, then we are agreed (WCF 7:5). The pedagogical use of the law was made specifically for the elect.

Rutherford markedly singled out this argument in the Covenant of Life Opened (I Cor. 10:1-4, Heb 11:13), distinguishing them from the reprobate, “Who persecute the Godly the sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adams dayes, and now is to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble, Ex.20:20, Fear not (saith Moses) God is come to prove you (not to damne you) and therefore Calvin solidely observeth that Paul, (2 Cor. 3), speaks with less respect of the Law and the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affection of the Law ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel….but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, Exod. 29:20, and chase them to Christ.”



From what I understand from various writers, the fall created a major change in the way elect Israel related to the law. Reprobate Israel related to the law in the same way Adam did, as Rutherford noted above. And (WCF 7:3) “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second.” Nor were the accidents of the law peculiar to the Mosaic economy only, for circumcision was first commanded to Abraham and his house, for the sake of the elect. The elect obtained the promises by approaching the law from afar-off (Heb.11:13). Israel at large had a relationship to the covenant of works that had prescribed law as law, bondage and death, as seen also in Adam.

As to the terms and nature of the covenant of works, it was not republished as to obtain life through works of sincere obedience nor ever changed its terms and nature as to require anything less but perfect obedience. Rutherford writes, “this covenant was made with Israel only, Exod. 20, Deut 5.c.6. Deut6:5, 6:7.12. The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.” A clear distinction that agrees with the law as prescribed to elect Abraham and Israel in WCF 7:5, along with the pedagogical use and intent of the law.



But I propose that these changes were made for the elect’s sake. For Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moses. The nature of the covenant of works is peculiar to Adam and all of mankind, not just Israel republished. Moses was a mediator, a type of Christ. Neither does the covenant of works command any ceremonies, sacrifices, or any type of a mediator at all. If the covenant of works were republished, it no longer retained anything due to its nature with such changes.

Rutherford asserts, For the Lord expressly tells them, when he took them by the hand as his married people, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. He meant no other covenant then he made with Abraham, of believing, Gen. 15, and of walking before him and being perfect, Gen 17:1,2., which is somewhat more legall, as Moses and the lord expones it, Exod 2:24, Exod. 3:6, Exod. 20. 1,2. And he shows them, Lev 26, if in their enemies land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised heartsshall willingly accept of the punishment of their inquity Lev 26:42: then (saith the Lord) I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one he excludes the other. For to walk before the Lord required in Abrahams covenant Gen 17:1 is to walk in the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him. Deut 10:12-13 and Samuel, I Sam. 12:22, Joshua, Josh 24:22,23, 24, 25. And Mary, Luke 1:55, And Zacharias, ver. 70,72,73 refer to the covenant made with Abraham, and Deut 6. the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed.”



I understand Rutherford to apply the typological relation of the law relative to the people of the Jews, all of which signified Christ to come, for the elect. As WCF 7:5 states, “under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignfying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elct in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”

The law as pressed upon Israel was not the covenant of works.



The covenant of works WCF 19:2, “This law after the fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments…” But such a covenant of works cannot be applied to the elect of Israel, as in 19:6, “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works…” The administration of the covenant shadows are interpreted in (WCF 7:5) for the elect, inclusive of circumcision (Gen:17).



If the law be fulfilled by grace, we are justified by works. Nor are we in bondage to the dominion of the condemning law. But if we submit ourselves to every lawful ordinance of man for Christ’s sake, then we do well.

Rutherford, “For there can be none under the covenant of works, and also under the covenant of grace, for they are contrair dispensations, and contrair wayes of salvation.”



I understand that Israel gained temporal merciful benefits because of God’s promises to the elect which were in Israel. When contrasting the covenant of grace with the legal civil covenant of works, Rutherford states, “There is no more reason to say, it was a civil covenant made with Abraham, because it distinguished Abrahams seed from other nations, and an earthly Covenant, because Canaan was promised to them, not to us, then to say there be two covenants of works, one made to Adam, with promise of an earthly Paradise, and another covenant of works to the Jews, with an earthly Canaan; and a third to these who in the gospel time are under the covenant of works.”



But to Israel at large, the conditional language was but a stumblingblock, The righteousness of faith is clearly distinguished from the righteousness of Law-doing. For so Paul, Rom 10:5-7 and Moses, Deut 30:11-14.

Rutherford, “The covenant of works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it. Exod. 24:8. And Moses took, the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words. Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See Heb 9:18-24.”



I do not necessarily see how you’re good words, as written here above, speak to a republication of the covenant of works for Israel at large. Israel (like Adam) is under the original terms and nature of the covenant of works without any requirement to republish another (WCF 19:2). Christ fulfills the covenant of works as our kinsmen redeemer for his elect as promised under various accidents.

Rutherford, "And when God made the covenant with Abraham, Gen 17 and renewed the same, Deut. 29, he made it with these who were not yet standing, vs. 14,15, not with you only, &c, but virtually, radically with us Gentiles, who were not then born, as touching the substantials, for Priesthood, Law service, Types, Sacrifices, Circumcision, yea Baptism, the Lord's supper. Pastors, Teachers, Elders to rule, Deacons, were all accidents, to the substance of the Covenant, to wit, to believe in Christ and to obtain righteousness and Life by Christ."

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

Is it your understanding that the only category in which we can speak of the covenant of works is soteriological?

What was Israel's function as a national, corporate entity, in the history of salvation?

rsc

Prof. Clark,

I think it's a mistake to divorce the entity from the interwoven purpose of the entity, and how it applies to the covenanted parties of the entity, within the function of national, corporate Israel.

Kevin,

I'm not sure I understand your answers at all, but if I'm close, then I think we're talking past one another.

Could you elaborate?

Maybe these propositions will help advance the discussion?

I understand that the national covenant in Israel was added (Gal 3) to the Mosaic as a distinct, temporary entity.

I understand the Abrahamic covenant continued unabated and was administered during the Mosaic via types and shadows.

I understand that the temporary Mosaic national covenant functioned on multiple levels simultaneously and that the land tenure promises were conditional in a way the Abrahamic covenant could never be.

rsc

Originally Posted by Catechist

Prof. Clark,

I think it's a mistake to divorce the entity from the interwoven purpose of the entity, and how it applies to the covenanted parties of the entity, within the function of national, corporate Israel.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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?

Tim comments -One of the problems in the Theonomy debate has been that people on both sides are talking past one another on key points. We must understand their reasons for doing what they do before we criticize them. Modern theonomists are not trying to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration: they are trying to get us to see that Divinely unamended Mosaic stipulations are an integral part of the New Covenant administration for one or both of the following reasons:

1) That Christ in Matt. 5:17,18 specifically included the Mosaic judicials within the new covenant. This is based on the belief popularized by Bahnsen in "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" that Christ was teachig that he had come to "confirm" every least detail of the ethical stipulations of the law until the end of the church age.

2) That all Divinely unamended Mosaic civil laws and punishments are included in the WCF 19:4's phrase "general equity may require."

These are the reasons why Theonomists want to establish Mosaic civil laws.

Understanding why someone is doing what he does, however, does not require us to conclude that the other person is always right. There are a number of problems with both justifications for the theonomic endeavour. These are:

1) The belief that Christ was teaching what theonomists think he taught in Matt. 5:17, 18 is open to serious exegetical challenge. I wrote an extended paper addressing this question and here is the summary of the section dealing with Bahnsen's view of v. 17. (Please contact me at tcunning@telus.net for the complete paper. I'd post here but it is over the size limit.)

At the beginning of this chapter we saw that Bahnsen's view of Mathew 5:17 would depend on whether at least four of five key premises could be established. Having examined each of Bahnsen's attempts to show that his chosen alternatives are either the only possible meaning of the words in question or are superior to all other relevant options, we now can evaluate his argument as a whole.

Bahnsen's first premise, that Christ meant His hearers to understand "the law or the prophets" as referring to "the ethical stipulations of the law," has been shown to be flawed by a number of methodological errors, including insufficient supporting arguments and a notable failure to check the original languages and the standard reference tools at key points. When we draw the logical conclusion and wonder why Christ bothered to add “or the prophets” at all, Bahnsen’s explanations are unsatisfactory. And Bahnsen does all this, in spite of Christ’s deliberate use of "or", (the meaning of which Bahnsen, by misquoting a source! misrepresents), which makes his reduction of the meaning of “the Law or the Prophets” from the entire Mosaic covenant administration to its “ethical stipulations” less likely. In addition, Bahnsen's refutation of the more likely meaning of the phrase "the law or the prophets," i.e. the Mosaic covenant, has been shown to be inadequate on two of his three grounds, and the third will be shortly be shown to be equally flawed. Thus Bahnsen's first premise, already highly unlikely, presently hangs by a thread shortly to be cut off.

Bahnsen's second premise, that kataloosai must mean "annul" here is clearly incorrect: Bahnsen failed to discuss why kataloo which certainly took the meaning “destroy” rather than “annul,” when used of the law in Gal. 2:18 cannot mean the same thing in Matt. 5:17, a particularly significant omission given that the KJV translators thought “destroy” was a better fit in that context. In addition, even if kataloosai was intended to mean "annul" here, "alla", as Bahnsen himself later recognized, does not always force a meaning of total contradiction on the words it separates, and thus Bahnsen's required third premise, that kataloosai must force the translation of pleroosai as "confirm" also collapses.

Bahnsen's next error is his rejection, without sufficient discussion, of four known and decidedly relevant meanings of “fulfill” for pleroo despite the substantial Scriptural support that they enjoy, and their demonstrable relevance that each has in the context of Matthew 5:17. Instead, he opts for the uncertain translational possibility “confirm” in the sense of "establish the ongoing validity of," a possibility made considerably weaker by the lack of solid evidence that either the Hebrew mla or the Greek pleroo ever took the meaning "confirm" in that sense in the New Testament era. This lack of evidence destroys the fourth premise that plhrwsai meant "confirm" in that sense. Finally, the now essential fifth premise: that "confirm" in the sense of "establish the ongoing applicability of commands" is a logical and legitimate implication of translating plhrw by "fulfill" has been demonstrated to be both illogical and false to the Scriptures.

Finally, Bahnsen makes Christ out to have made a massive error in His choice of words by using the misleading pleroosai to mean “confirm,” rather than the far more fitting istemi (“confirm/establish”) or apokathistemi (“confirm / restore”) both of which were well known, available to Him, and would have established the Theonomic thesis beyond any possibility of doubt. In short, by inserting the meaning “confirm” for pleroo with no real lexical grounds for doing so, it is Bahnsen, not Poythress who is “…overlook[ing] the obvious…” and “…importing preconceived ideas into the text, rather than reading them out of the text” and doing violence to the context. Of Bahnsen's five premises, his first now hangs by a thread, his failed second premise has been made irrelevant by the failure of his third, and both of his last two premises have been shown to be insupportable.

Since Bahnsen has misunderstood the subject of Christ's thought, the relationship between the two verbs brought about by the conjunction, and the meanings of both of the key verbs in this verse, it is clear that his exegetical case for the Theonomic thesis has not met the burden of proof. At this point it is clear that Bahnsen’s Theonomy is one thesis Christ is not teaching in these verses.

2) That the Theonomists also misunderstand the extent the Wetminster Divines gave to "general equity may require" is easily demonstrated simply by showing how individual Westminster divines did not require all Mosaic stipulations to be followed or amended them without authorization. A good example of the latter is Gillespie who permitted the magistrate not to inflict the death penalty for heresy in particular circumstances. Gillespie wrote

…the fifth and last is that kind of toleration whereby the Magistrate when it is in the power of his hand to punish and extirpate, yet having to do with such of whom there is good hope either of reducing them by convincing their judgments, or of uniting them to the Church by a safe accommodation of differences, he grants them a supersedeas [forbearance]; or though there be no such ground of hope concerning them, yet while he might crush them with the foot of power, in Christian piety and moderation, he forbears so far as may not be destructive to the peace and right government of the Church, using his coercive power with such a mixture of mercy as creates no mischief to the rest of the Church.
I speak not only of bearing with those who are weak in faith (Rom. 15:1), but of sparing even those who have perverted the faith, so far as the word of God and rules of Christian moderation would have severity tempered with mercy: that is (as has been said) so far as is not destructive to the Church's peace, nor shakes the foundations of the established form of church government, and no further…

Gillespie, George "Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty," London, 1644, now online at http://www.naphtali.com/severity.htm

Here Gillespie allows the magistrate to do something not allowed by the Mosaic judicials. The relevant statues were not explicitly amended in the NT nor do we find any NT teaching from which we can derive Gillespie's conclusion by good and necessary consequence. Gillespie clearly does not follow Bahnsen's hermeneutical axiom:

In all of its minute detail, (every jot and tittle) the law of God down to its least significant provision should be reckoned to have an abiding validity- until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise.

(Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position" in God and Politics, Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1989, pp. 40, 41.)

Since the two men disagree at the level of basic principle, we can be certain that Gillespie was no Theonomist.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

Could you elaborate?

I understand that the national covenant in Israel was added (Gal 3) to the Mosaic as a distinct, temporary entity.

True, but I would also conclude that gentile nations, which become visible churches in the NT, no longer under age as in OT Israel, may also covenant nationally. Not based in judicals (I'm not a theonomist) but based on national church status. So Rutherford argues, such should not be scoffed at, and supplies many good arguments from the same.

I understand the Abrahamic covenant continued unabated and was administered during the Mosaic via types and shadows.

True.

I understand that the temporary Mosaic national covenant functioned on multiple levels simultaneously and that the land tenure promises were conditional in a way the Abrahamic covenant could never be.

True, but I distinguish between the premise and function of national covenants. The Mosaic national covenant was premised upon many conditional law functions which are now abrogated, ceremonial and judical. NT national covenants are premised upon the moral law, both tables. Which when a nation becomes a national established church, they must function based upon the moral law, and implement moral laws based upon the general equity of the judical law, which laws may take on various forms in various nations, with no requirement to exact the judicals of the OT.

Can we, for the purpose of discussion, divide the question?

Let's set aside whether there can be post-canonical national covenants and focus on whether God may be said to have made a national covenant with Israel and in what way it was conditional.

Could you elaborate on the ways in which the Israelite national covenant was conditional?

rsc

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Can we, for the purpose of discussion, divide the question?

Let's set aside whether there can be post-canonical national covenants and focus on whether God may be said to have made a national covenant with Israel and in what way it was conditional.

Could you elaborate on the ways in which the Israelite national covenant was conditional?

rsc

I'm not sure I can divide the question and speak to the covenant of the law for the Jew only? For what's conditional for national covenants are mere circumstances of the esssential frame of the church, whether it be under age or no. The conditions of the Israelite national covenant were not in oppostion to the New Covenant.

"A good example of the different application of the law-gospel antithesis is seen in comparing Bullinger with Luther on Gen. 17. Luther’s law-gospel hermeneutic forces him into a form of Dispensationalism, where Gen. 17 is a covenant of law for the Jew only, in opposition to the New Covenant. In contrast, Bullinger and the Reformed understood Gen. 17 to be a covenant for the church for all ages, consistent with the coming of Christ, and therefore part of the covenant of grace."

I have found the above stated here, http://thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com/2...ductory-essay/ which is a fuller explanation of our topic under discussion.

I'm attempting to answer your question as directly as possible, please pardon my inability break down the Israelite national covenant conditions separately.

Prof. Clark,

Having read your article in the Confessional Presbyterian, it seems that you acknowledge the internal/external distinction in traditional reformed covenant theology, and that the covenant of grace as externally administered under the New Testament is conditional. I applaud you for faithfully expounding the reformed view in opposition to FV misconceptions. But to be consistent, this means the conditionality of the "covenant of law" does not render it a covenant of works. Rather, as the WCF clearly teaches, this is the covenant of grace administered under the law in contrast to its administration under the gospel.

I realize I am bringing up a very old thread, but I have a question from a very different perspective regarding Horton's book.

I am a recovering ex-Dispensationalist. It is all I have ever known. I am slowly having the scales removed from my eyes, but it is a long process. Not long to give up dispieness, just long to figure out where I belong and how it all fits together.

Anyway, my question regards Horton's view of land promises belonging specifically to the Mosaic Covenant. I agree with him that the Mosaic Covenant was conditional and temporary. No problem there. But then he traces Dispensationalists error to the fact that they take the land promises of the Mosaic Covenant and make them permanent.

In discussing the Mosaic covenant, he says, "Dispensationalism and the so-called two-covenant theory currently popular in mainline theology both treat the land promise as eternal and irrevocable, even to the extent that there can be a difference between Israel and the church in God's plan. Bot interpretations, however, fail to recognize that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves qualify this national covenant in strictly conditional terms." (Horton, pg 47)

While I agree with him about the problem concerning the separation of Israel and the church, I disagree with him about where dispies get their view of the land promises. They trace the land promises not to the Mosaic Covenant, but to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Genesis 12:6-7 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land."

And, more specifically (with no requirements from Abram)

Genesis 15:18-21 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates -- 19 "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 "the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 "the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

Genesis 17:7-8 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Does Covenant Theology see this as a conditional promise? I recognize that the Mosaic realization was conditional, but is the Abrahamic? What do we do with this description of land?

Help!