Thread: Mosaic Covenant: Law or Gospel?

Jordan,

The best I can do is to recommend a few puritan works:

Marrow of Modern Divinity:

The Marrow of Modern Divnity

John Flavel's work on the covenant of grace:

Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis* - Rev. John Flavel

You will note in Flavel's work that the opponent is a certain Mr. Philip Cary, who was NOT a covenant theologian, but who held a view similar to what you're describing. You will note all of the puritans that Flavel sites as being against the view promulgated (if you are right about Horton) by Horton, Kline, WSC etc. if those views are similar to Mr. Cary's.

If you are right about what they are saying (the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the CoW), then this list of puritans was wrong:

MR. ALLEN,
MR. SEDGWICK,
MR. BAXTER,
MR. ROBERTS,
MR. SYDENHAM,
AND DR. BURTHOGGE

And the author himself, John Flavel. As you may undoubtedly know, these were some of the Post-westminster luminaries among the puritans. If I may be so bold, I think they adequately represent the teachings of the Westminster Assembly, and that Mr. Flavel's arguments bear out the teaching of the Confession quite nicely.

Categorizing the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the CoW is not Reformed theology, as far as Westminster is concerned. The implications of doing this are far reaching, and have led certain of this crowd to condemn the socio-political and ethical teaching of scripture as part of the CoW, and thereby make it irrelevant. Something the WCF does not do.

Happy reading!

Adam

I'm not equiped to contribute, but look forward to learning from this thread.

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

I was introduced to Covenant theology by O. Palmer Robertson in his classic work Christ of the Covenants. After reading God of Promise by Michael Horton, alongside Meredith Kline's work on covenant theology, I modified my covenant theology a bit. Right now, I consider myself a Klinean to the core and agree with the WSC consensus on the law/gospel distinction, two kingdoms theology, etc. etc. Horton continues to state in his book that the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, and should be regarded strictly as a suzerain/vassal treaty consistent with the law principle. After recently reading John Murray's tract on the covenant of grace, I noted how he emphatically regards the Mosaic covenant as an integral administration of the covenant of grace in the history of redemption. My questions are both historical and theological. What do some of you guys think about this issue? 1) Is the Mosaic covenant strictly a covenant of works? 2) If so, does this confuse the law/gospel distinction and pose a threat to our soteriology, specifically justification and the alone instrument (faith) through which we are justified? 3.) Does Kline/WSC represent mainstream Reformed covenantal thinking, or do some of you think that Kline departs from historic Reformed covenantalism in significant ways? 4). Historically, is Reformed theology monolithic in its understanding of the Mosaic covenant, or are there differences of thought concerning whether the Mosaic covenant should be looked at through the lenses of law or gospel? I'm sure there are Klineans out there who will agree with WSC and Kline in their understanding of covenant theology. This is where I tend to lean. I'm sure there are also those who favor Murray's position and regard the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace in the history of redemption. I hold firmly to the law/gospel distinction, and fear that viewing the Mosaic covenant in both law and gospel categories might confuse these soteriological paradigms a bit. Nevertheless, I'm Reformed and always reforming, and only desire to allign my thought with solid Reformed confessional thinking. Thanks so much. I know this is a lot to answer, and I'm not interested in debating. I'm just curious as to what some of you might think about these issues. Grace and peace.

Horton's book is helpful in learning about the diversity of the covenants; Robertson's in seeing the thematic unity across Scripture. Horton responds and critiques Robertson, Robertson takes on the Dispy's (so to speak).

You are right on when you state that Horton holds the Mosaic to be a reproduction of the covenant of works. The Mosaic covenant is unique, similar to other covenants, but is distinct. I hold something of a balance between Robertson and Kline - the Mosaic is not all law, no grace; nor is it all grace and no law (obviously).

The tenor of the OT is that Israel was exiled because she forsook God. There certainly was a conditional element to the Mosaic Cov't. Kline is dead on there. A question to consider is how is God portrayed in the Mosaic Cov't? He is jealous for worship from His people, and His glory. But There is a gracious element there as well, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of slavery." So the Mosiac Cov't is founded on God's grace to his people, and his fore-loving (election) of Israel. The paradigm thus is grace-law-grace. Is that not how we preach? Israel did not remain in exile.

Regarding #3 and 4, Kline is certainly on one side of the reformed pendulum and Murray on the other. I think most reformed people hold a blend of the two, more of Kline than not. Many FV people claim Murray's Adamic Administration to be a premature synthesis of their ideas (though it is not). But a reformed Spectrum would look like:

Kline ---- Horton ---- ------ Robertson ----- Murray ----- --- all one cov't of grace (Protestant Reformed and others)

Do I get to vote? Both.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Jordan,

The best I can do is to recommend a few puritan works:

Marrow of Modern Divinity:

The Marrow of Modern Divnity

John Flavel's work on the covenant of grace:

Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis - Rev. John Flavel

You will note in Flavel's work that the opponent is a certain Mr. Philip Cary, who was NOT a covenant theologian, but who held a view similar to what you're describing. You will note all of the puritans that Flavel sites as being against the view promulgated (if you are right about Horton) by Horton, Kline, WSC etc. if those views are similar to Mr. Cary's.

If you are right about what they are saying (the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the CoW), then this list of puritans was wrong:

MR. ALLEN,
MR. SEDGWICK,
MR. BAXTER,
MR. ROBERTS,
MR. SYDENHAM,
AND DR. BURTHOGGE

Just so that you make a complete list that includes strong, solid and fully respectable in terms of their covenant theology (rather than the questionable ones like Baxter that you list above) you can add to the list John Owen, Herman Witsius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston, among others.

It should be noted that those who saw a republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant did NOT see that as anything but a temporal device - there was never any indication in their writings that the Mosaic Covenant was in any way (salvifically speaking) a covenant of Works. They wrote clearly that the Mosaic Covenant was promulgated as one dispensation (to use the Westminsterian sense) of the ONE Covenant of Grace!

I think the question in the title of the thread makes answering difficult. "Mosaic Covenant: Law or Gospel?" Well, are you defining "law" and "gospel" in the dualistic Lutheran manner that WSC seems to follow? If so, I believe it's a false dichotomy. There is law and gospel in the Mosaic covenant ("I brought you out of the house of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; Thou shalt have no other gods, etc.") just as there is law and gospel in the new covenant ("Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more").

And if you want to be confessional, take note that the Westminster Standards never define "law" and "gospel" in the dualistic Lutheran sense. And what's more, the Standards are pretty clear that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, while saying nothing of it being an "administration" of the covenant of works (in any sense whatsoever). Seems to me that the doctrine of the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai is at best extra-confession and at worst contra-confessional (if the Westminster Standards are your standards).

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

MR. ALLEN,
MR. SEDGWICK,
MR. BAXTER,
MR. ROBERTS,
MR. SYDENHAM,
AND DR. BURTHOGGE


Just so that you make a complete list that includes strong, solid and fully respectable in terms of their covenant theology (rather than the questionable ones like Baxter that you list above) you can add to the list John Owen, Herman Witsius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston, among others.

It should be noted that those who saw a republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant did NOT see that as anything but a temporal device - there was never any indication in their writings that the Mosaic Covenant was in any way (salvifically speaking) a covenant of Works. They wrote clearly that the Mosaic Covenant was promulgated as one dispensation (to use the Westminsterian sense) of the ONE Covenant of Grace!

Todd,

Yes, I was merely cutting and pasting from Flavel's book, which is why the list is not complete, nor (as you pointed out) as satisfying as it could otherwise be.

I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.

Thanks for the extra names!

Adam

Casey. Apologies if my wording was ambiguous. Nevertheless, I could have heard the same statement espoused by any Federal Visionist seeking to create a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of law and gospel in an attempt to revamp our confessional doctrine of justification. I'm not saying you're a federal visionist in any sense, I'm merely noting that the rhetoric is similar. Reformed scholasticism at its finest distinguished between law and gospel as fundamentally different soteriological paradigms. From Ursinius to Turretin to Shedd to Vos to Bavinck, the Reformed have always spoken of the law/gospel distinction as integral to Reformed systematics. Noteworthy is that when Beza hashed out the fundamental differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, the law/gospel distinction nor justification by faith alone were ever listed as something fundamentally disagreed upon. The modern attempt to pit Lutheran formulations of law/gospel over and against a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of these principles has been a major contribution to the revisionistic heresies we're seeing in the NPP, FV, and Shepherd. I agree that we shouldn't attempt to flatten out the Mosaic covenant strictly into one particular principle like law/gospel or works/grace. Obviously, the Lord was patient and gracious with Israel in her continual apostasy, and grace abounded when blatant sin and idolatry were present within the nation. God's election of Israel as a nation was also a gracious act of condescension, along with the types and shadows which pointed to the person and work of Christ. Nevertheless, on a typological and national level, I think the works principle is there. It was the failure of the Mosaic Covenant to offer a salvific remedy for Israel's lawbreaking that constituted the need for the New Covenant, wherein the mind's and heart's of God's people are transformed from within as the law is written on their hearts.

As for Owen being included among the ranks of those who saw the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace, I would beg to differ. Owen used the "republication" language when speaking of the Mosaic covenant. Owen viewed Israel's national and typological status, along with her physical blessings in the land as dependent upon obedience to the law, this reality reflective of the ethos of the covenant of works. In speaking of the Mosaic Covenant Owen writes...

"It revived the promise of that covenant, - that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, 'That the man which doeth those things shall live by them,' Rom x.5; as he doth, Lev.xviii.5. Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, 'Do this, and live.'" (XXII, p.78)

I think one has to be careful when categorizing earlier writers and cast them in the same shadows as WSC. I think their (WSC) approach is novel. I really believe that the earlier writers, even if they spoke to this and used some of the same language, would show that the giving of the law as a tutor to Christ is the only sense in which it was a republication of the CoW. In the sense of "do this and live," it was not, to the children of Israel, a promise of eternal salvation by their obedience. One of the key indicators that such a thing is not promised in the Mosaic covenant is that man, by his fall into sin, lost communion with God and was under His wrath and curse. If under wrath and curse, the only blessing, even though temporal, to be rendered to any of Adam's sons, is that of common grace. Yet, we would not consider God's relationship to Israel to be one of common grace, but of saving grace. If saving grace, then there is no room for law keeping as a means of grace or an instrument of justification.

Therefore, if there is any republication, it is only as a tutor. There is no getting around the fact that God will not tolerate anything other than perfect obedience, and that by faith. Further, He will not reward anything other than faith, without which none can please Him. If it is a republication in the WSC sense, then God would be rewarding those with saving graces who did not please Him by faith. Yet what does Hebrews tell us? God was pleased with some because of their faith, which was a gift to them by Him.

So, I can't see the republication in the WSC sense, and I do not believe that classic covenant theology agrees with them either.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.

Come again? Where did you get the idea that Flavel was a baptist?

Ursinus notes in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:

The law promises life to those who are righteous in themselves, or on the condition of righteousness, and perfect obedience. [Lev 18:5; Matt 19:17] The gospel, on the other hand, promises life to those who are justified by faith in Christ, or on the condition of the righteousness of Christ, applied unto us by faith. The law and the gospel are, however, not opposed to each other in these respects: for although the law requires us to keep the commandments if we would enter into life, yet it does not exclude us from life if another perform these things for us. It does indeed propose a way of satisfaction, which is through ourselves, but it does not forbid the other, as has been shown.

This is just one quote of many that can be reproduced from the early Reformers who taught that eternal life was obtainable through the law for those who kept it in perfection.

I think it is proper, therefore, to say that a 'stream' of the covenant of works is found in the Mosaic economy. This is NOT to disparage the law of God per se (see Romans 3:31) but only to drive us to Christ.

In fact I would disagree that the Mosaic covenant is, by its very nature, a covenant of works though it does, at times, portray elements of it.

P.S. Let us refrain from speaking about the WSC view of the covenants because I don't think it is helpful. Do they really take Horton's position as a faith statement? I was taught Hebrew by a professor at WSC who disagreed with Kline's view of the Mosaic economy (though he no longer teaches there).

KC

Thanks for the reply. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, I'm a Klinean to the core and view WSC as representing one particular school of historic-Reformed covenantal thinking.

One clarification. Kline and his followers never claim that the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant entails obedience upon reward of salvific blessing. No one is saying that Israel's obedience to the law yields any salvific benefit. Individual Israelites are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Kline is simply arguing that Israel's national and typological enjoyment of physical blessing is strictly dependent upon obedience to the law, as seen in the suzerain-vassal context in which the covenant is dispensed. "Do this and live", for Kline, constitutes the essence of the Sinai covenant.

Daniel,
Apologies if my statements about WSC flatten out the differences that might exist between the profs. In fact, Iain Duguid seems to differ from Horton in his essay in CJPM. I'm sure there are other differences as well. I'm thinking specifically of guys like Horton and Clark who seem to follow Kline's covenantalism.

No problem; I wasn't angry about it.

Duguid was the one whom I had in mind (as contrary to the Klinean position).

And I am not certain how much Godfrey espouses the Klinean view (if at all). I know that WSC has also been lumped in with an anti-Kuyperian bent but as someone pointed out on another thread, Godfrey, for example, has a high view of Kuyper. And then you have the resident Puritan advocate on staff, Hywel Jones. Just a few more examples to show the variety that exists among the faculty.

One thing is certain, though: NPP and FV will not find a home at WSC while these men are teaching there (thankfully and - hopefully - never!).

Amen!

My bad!

Flavel's enemy was a baptist

That's what I meant to say.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

I was merely making the point that this was the puritan understanding, and the modern Moses = CoW promulgators are not reformed or puritan in this regard. They would be generally classified as John Flavel's enemies in this regard, who was a baptist.

Come again? Where did you get the idea that Flavel was a baptist?

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

Casey. Apologies if my wording was ambiguous. Nevertheless, I could have heard the same statement espoused by any Federal Visionist seeking to create a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of law and gospel in an attempt to revamp our confessional doctrine of justification. I'm not saying you're a federal visionist in any sense, I'm merely noting that the rhetoric is similar. Reformed scholasticism at its finest distinguished between law and gospel as fundamentally different soteriological paradigms. From Ursinius to Turretin to Shedd to Vos to Bavinck, the Reformed have always spoken of the law/gospel distinction as integral to Reformed systematics. Noteworthy is that when Beza hashed out the fundamental differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, the law/gospel distinction nor justification by faith alone were ever listed as something fundamentally disagreed upon. The modern attempt to pit Lutheran formulations of law/gospel over and against a distinctly "Reformed" understanding of these principles has been a major contribution to the revisionistic heresies we're seeing in the NPP, FV, and Shepherd. I agree that we shouldn't attempt to flatten out the Mosaic covenant strictly into one particular principle like law/gospel or works/grace. Obviously, the Lord was patient and gracious with Israel in her continual apostasy, and grace abounded when blatant sin and idolatry were present within the nation. God's election of Israel as a nation was also a gracious act of condescension, along with the types and shadows which pointed to the person and work of Christ. Nevertheless, on a typological and national level, I think the works principle is there. It was the failure of the Mosaic Covenant to offer a salvific remedy for Israel's lawbreaking that constituted the need for the New Covenant, wherein the mind's and heart's of God's people are transformed from within as the law is written on their hearts.

Boy, I never thought I'd be compared to the Federal Visionists for wanting to defend the Confession. So, you mean I have to accept your law-gospel dualism (which is nowhere taught in the Confession) to be "confessional" and thus not employ Federal Visionist rhetoric? Honestly, I've been thinking the gymnastics done in WCF 19 to force a "republication" doctrine into the Confession seems to be far more in line with the antics of the Federal Vision camp.

Klineans like to quote from numerous Reformed theologians of the past to support their republication doctrine, their two-kingdoms doctrine, and their law-gospel dualism (whether these are valid appeals to these Reformed authorities is another question). That's fine. I could go ahead and pull up Calvin quotes regarding the Sabbath. But if I held Calvin's view of the Sabbath, I wouldn't be confessional anymore, would I? In other words, just because you can dig up a heap of Reformed theologians who have held your position, it does not mean that it's the confessional position today. I'm not minimizing the usefulness of respected Reformed theologians from the past. But I am saying that the Confession has more authority than them and ought to be read and interpreted in its own right. History only assists our interpretation of the Standards, it doesn't define our interpretation of the Standards. If Calvin (or any other number of Reformed theologians) held to a particular view, that doesn't mean the Confession does.

I think there's a reason Klineans rarely quote from the Westminster Standards when it comes to supporting their view of the Mosaic Covenant, the "two kingdoms," and their law-gospel dualism. Quite simply, these teachings aren't there. (It would be interesting to see just exactly how many times Horton references the Westminster Standards in his book.) I really can't understand how you can honestly read the Lutheran view in the Westminster Standards, it's just not there. If you want to ask, "Which views have been acceptable in the Reformed tradition in the past?" That's one question. And I believe that question is different from, "Which view is the confessional view?" Also different from, "Which view is the biblical view?" I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith is an accurate representation and summary of the Bible's teaching. But I do not believe the republication of the CoWs at Sinai, the radical two-kingdom dualism, or the radical law-gospel dualism are either biblical or confessional.

Disagree? Please prove from the Westminster Standards: (1) the republication of the CoWs at Sinai (answering this post); (2) the law-gospel dualism (answering this post); and, (3) the radical two-kingdom view. Please do this only using the Westminster Standards, that is, if you want to determine which is the actual "confessional" view. And according to RSC, the confessional view is the Reformed view.

(Presupposed in this post of mine is that we subscribe to the Westminster Standards -- I understand that the Three Forms of Unity may be more ambiguous or more exact on different points in comparison with the Westminster Standards.)

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

KC

Thanks for the reply. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, I'm a Klinean to the core and view WSC as representing one particular school of historic-Reformed covenantal thinking.

One clarification. Kline and his followers never claim that the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant entails obedience upon reward of salvific blessing. No one is saying that Israel's obedience to the law yields any salvific benefit. Individual Israelites are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Kline is simply arguing that Israel's national and typological enjoyment of physical blessing is strictly dependent upon obedience to the law, as seen in the suzerain-vassal context in which the covenant is dispensed. "Do this and live", for Kline, constitutes the essence of the Sinai covenant.

So my question is, why base any blessing upon obedience to the law, when perfect obedience by faith is the requirement? How could God EVER be pleased by any obedience other than Christ's who by faith is the only hope for obedience in the Christian? If the Israelite had faith in the messiah to come, then surely, not only temporal blessings, but spiritual and salvific blessings would be his because of the object of his faith and because God rewards those who earnestly (by faith) seek Him.

Another thing. What is the promise of this covenant? Does it involve God being a God to them? What does that mean? How was the covenant ratified? What sign was given? Did it involve blood? Making the Mosaic covenant all about the land is not possible because it doesn't fit the words being said or the actions being taken. Those words are words of grace and salvation. That blood represents the blood of Christ. How can that covenant point to anything other than the everlasting covenant of which this rendering is an administrative part of.

Yet another thing. I don't like the way Kline brought in the suzerainty treaties because I believe he is assuming that God formulated this "agreement" to look like the agreements everyone else was making. The everlasting covenant is just that, it's everlasting (OLAM). It was a time before time and will be a time after time. The representative blood shed was shed from the foundation of the world. The fact that other nations are making like treaties does not mean that God borrowed from them to make a treaty with His people. The fact that other nations are making treaties is because God established this pattern first.

Kline's formulations are not logical. It doesn't make sense to base temporal promises/rewards on obedience because no one except Christ would ever receive them. It is one thing to base salvation on faith and not works. It is another to say that God will reward anyone for works of the flesh in any realm. That would mean God, by necessity, would reward works. The Bible clearly states that the works of the flesh are their own reward and Paul's list certainly doesn't look flattering and praiseworthy for any temporal blessing.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

4). Historically, is Reformed theology monolithic in its understanding of the Mosaic covenant, or are there differences of thought concerning whether the Mosaic covenant should be looked at through the lenses of law or gospel?

Dear Cotton,

There are (in a nutshell) three basic positions in the developed reformed tradition concerning the Sinai covenant (the early tradition didn't speak explicitly of a covenant of works / grace):

[1] Those who see Sinai as a covenant of works (like Robert Rollock, William Pemble, and John Preston).

[2] The majority view which understood Sinai as a covenant of grace (e.g. Sibbes, Ames, Ball, Rutherford, Brooks, Flavel).

[3] The minority view which understood Sinai as not a different administration of the covenant of works or grace, but a third type of covenant (foedus suberviens - subservient covenant) whose purpose was to bring Israel to Christ, and then expire. It was first expounded by John Cameron, and followed by the school of Saumur, and most notably expounded by John Owen (in his commentary on Hebrews 8) and Samuel Petto. This view sought to take seriously the clear distinction in Hebrews between the old and new covenant terminology. It is moving in a "New Covenant Theology" direction but not quite there.

Kline's view is not the majority view, but that of course doesn't make it wrong. It's the biblical text that must show us what's right.

Blessings bro.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

[1] Those who see Sinai as a covenant of works (like Robert Rollock, William Pemble, and John Preston).

Marty, I don't think legal and evangelical covenant equate to the covenant of works and covenant of grace as later formulated. Hence it is somewhat inappropriate to categorise these divines as holding to a Mosaic covenant of works. Rollock says the five books of Moses only set forth the lineaments of the evangelical covenant but clearly recommend and urge the legal covenant (God's Effectual Calling, p. 39). If by legal covenant he meant the covenant of works, he would be stating that the Pentateuch as a whole were a legal covenant, which is unlikely. Rather, he is using the original paradigm (as in Tyndale) which equated "legal" with the Old Testament and "evangelical" with the New Testament. These divines should not have later dogmatic frameworks superimposed on their exposition.

Casey,
I'm not interested in providing some kind of "puritanboard" dissertation on Klinean covenantalism and its compatibility with the WCF. And if you read my response carefully I explicitly stated that I in no way implied that you harbor federal vision sympathies. I merely stated the actual reality IS that FV theologians argue in the same exact vein. Read Horne, Lusk, Wilkins, Wilson, Leithart, Shepherd and others. What do you hear? That Lutheran formulations of law and gospel fundamentally differ from Reformed theology in significant respects. If you agree with them, that's fine. I merely pointed out that FV vocabulary is very very similar to the statement you made about the incompatibility of law/gospel in Reformed theology.

I simply don't buy your bit about individual theologians versus Reformed confessionalism. You're operating on the assumption that Reformed scholasticism at its finest differs significantly from the WCF. Sorry man, but I just don't buy it. While the divines may have departed from earlier continental Reformed thinking in some respects, the mainstream views on major issues such as covenant theology and law/gospel were harmoniously consistent.

Let's face it. I'm a Klinean and you'll continue to argue that Kline departs from mainstream Reformed thinking. I happen to think that someone like Murray's covenantalism is significantly more contra-confessional than Kline (though I don't think this about Kline) in light of his flat out denial of a covenant of works. Nevertheless, I won't provide you a dissertation about Kline and the WCF. I'm working 50 hour weeks, have a pregnant wife to take care of, and need to do some more reading! Forgive me if I've seemed abrasive over these disagreements. I think there's room in Reformed thinking for a variety of covenantal views (excluding of course the obvious heresies of FV, NPP, Covenant Nomism, and others). Grace and Peace.

Well, brother, you're entitled to your opinion, and I definitely can understand not having the time to respond. But you're not the first person to leave my posts hanging without a substantive rebuttal. I really wish some Klinean would give those posts of mine a serious response. If I'm in error in some way I'd prefer to be corrected than left hanging.

Dear Matthew, thanks for your reply, but I'm struggling to grasp it. You question whether Rollock believes that Sinai was a covenant of works and conclude this:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

These divines should not have later dogmatic frameworks superimposed on their exposition.

You move from Rollock to "these divines" and the accusation of imposing "later dogmatic frameworks" (the other authors are from a latter period and both use the covenant of grace / works language very carefully). Are you saying that no-one believed that Sinai was a covenant of works? Kevan's study shows that there were those who believed that Sinai was a covenant of works [E. F. Kevan, The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 113-116.)] even if he doesn't expound the third way of Cameron and Owen.

Blessings.

Marty, No I'm not saying no one believed Sinai was a covenant of works. My comments were restricted to your first class of covenant theologians, and especially Robert Rollock, who was working within a different framework, one more germane to reformation exegesis, which looked at the covenants in terms of the "old" and "new" testaments rather than in terms of the dogmatic categories developed later.

Pertinent to this discussion is wondering how Horton gets to his conclusion. Ultimately, In God of Promise he reads, and understands, the cov't through Galatians 3, 4. I believe the chapter is entitled, "tale of two mothers.' (A friend is borrowing my copy so I cannot quote it, sorry).

A fundamental problem with Kline, Horton, and co. is they push the distinctiveness card too far. The Mosaic Cov't is law (with a lot of elements og grace), but it also builds off of the Abrahamic Cov't. Christ speaks to the pharisees by saying, "If you were a son of Abraham, you would know me." To be a son of Abraham is to respond in grace, not law. That is not the gospel.

There is the biggest difference in my estimation.

Again Horton reacts to Robertson, futhermore his explanation of Cov't Theology is tremendously helpful in critiquing FV and theonomy.

Central to Kline and Horton is, what is their definition of grace? I think that would be helpful.

Casey,
Thanks for your kind response. Please don't think for a minute that I'm helplessly trying to evade a defense of my position. I really don't have time. One of these days when I have a day off, I'll post some stuff on Kline and the WCF, because I do believe they are consistent. Grace and Peace.

Robbie,
I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

Robbie,
I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?

That is why I ask, "what is his definition of grace?" It certainly is not the same as Robertson's, at most on a functional level. When I studied Cov't Theology (under Duguid) he allowed there to be more than one definition of grace, allbeit, it is not saving grace. We do see this notion elsewhere, i.e. common grace.

What is the ethos behind Sinai? A continuation of the Abrahamic certainly, but also God is setting forth how his people will live. That is the ethos. Kline makes this point, as does Vos. The Mosaic Cov't typifies the kingdom of heaven. Thus it is not a model for civil governments (see the beauty of critiquing theonomy). You are right in seeing the "Do this and live" element. That is the distinctiveness. God did not have to walk through the carcasses, he already did that. At Sinai he did not cast Gen 15 to the wayside. So there is a continuity element as well. But you can have distinction and diversity with continuity in this economy.

There is something intriquing a few books later. Numbers 21 is a striking parallel to the Cross and Christ's work there. Israel broke the Cov'tal terms, God by all means should throw them off. He did not. Because he remembered the Abrahamic Cov't.

The tenor of the Mosaic is conditional, but the foundation for it is Gen. 15. I want to be careful to not simplify any of the Covenants as it robs them of their purpose and function.

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

Robbie,
I don't think Horton would deny that a grace element is present within the nature of the Mosaic covenant. I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?

What were God's promises to Abraham? Abraham would have God as God, Abraham would be the father of many, Abraham's children would possess a great land. Every time God remembered His covenant it was the covenant He made with whom? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It wasn't Moses!

If Horton, or anyone else for that matter, attempts to part and parcel out the covenants of Abraham and Moses, to say that this is spiritual/eternal and that is physical/temporal, they are completely overlooking how the covenant was ratified, and what words were spoken. For there are just as many physical/temporal promises made to Abraham, which they consider to be spiritual/eternal, as there were to Moses and the children of Israel.

More importantly, anyone who thinks this completely ignores the narrative of Hebrews 11. Paul certainly didn't believe that the Mosaic covenant was only a physical/temporal one. He explains well that, by faith, Abraham did all these things because he desired a better city and country, and not a physical one, because he never saw it. He saw the city God prepared for him, though. And Moses, what reward does Paul say he looked for? A physical country and city? I think it is pretty clear that because he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater than physical gain, his was looking forward to a reward that was spiritual, not physical.

This cannot pass as covenant theology. It completely ignores the promise made. Many just skip right over the fact that God's first and foremost promise is that He will be their God and they will be His people. Everything else after that, flows from the first promise. And to believe that God would hold a people to His bosom that had not first atoned for their sins and clung by faith to Him in hope of salvation, is to believe that God promised something to the church in the OT that He never intended to deliver. I'll say it again, only Christ could obey the law in a manner that would receive the promised blessings. And only faith in Christ can claim the promises of God.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

I think what Horton asks is: what fundamentally constitutes the ethos of the Mosaic covenant? Does Yahweh walk between the pieces of the slain animals in the Mosaic covenant, taking upon himself the obligations to fulfill the covenant of grace on behalf of Moses and his descendants, like he did with Abraham? Or does God promise a physical and typological land, seed, and blessing on the basis of "Do this and live"? I guess that's the rub. What's the basic tenor of the Mosaic covenant which accounts for its distinctiveness?

Not to butt in too much, but I would say "yes" to both questions.

The covenant with Moses and the people was a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise:

1. That God would be their God

2. That they would serve under a foreign king, and be delivered by God's free promise

3. That Abraham would be the "heir of the world" Canaan being a mere foretaste of the calling of all nations

Basically, the majority puritan approach (IMO) seems to have been to see Moses as an evangelist. He instructed individuals in how to be right with God: through the blood of the lamb, by which the covenant with Moses was ratified. Through the serpent lifted up; through the Passover, the firstfruits, etc.

Also, Moses is God's servant to instruct in civil law, in order that the people, once redeemed, may know how to live in holiness and righteousness all of their days. This encompasses personal holiness, family holiness, ecclesiastical holiness (worship and instruction), and civil holiness.

To confuse or mix Moses' teaching on justification with his teaching on sanctification is an old Jewish fable. There is no "do this in live" except in the same way it is presented in the New Covenant: to call us to perfect obedience, and thereby convict us of our sin and need of Christ. The New Covenant is even more "legal" in this sense, as Christ is constantly warning about the judgment of God, calling for obedience, and threatening curse after curse for those who will not obey.

All that to say, when the NT writers argue against Moses, it is not against Moses that they argue, but against the Jewish misunderstanding of Moses. The equate the Jewish misapplication of Moses with "the tenor of the Old Covenant" is not only wrongheaded, but childish and laughable. Moses preached the gospel, believed in Christ, and called upon his hearers to do the same. The land was not taken by works, or by man's sword, but by God's free promise, and unconditional mercy. God didn't choose them, call them, and put them in the Land of Canaan for any merit of theirs, but sheerly by His grace and mercy.

As for the dividing of the animals passage that you mentioned, please see the following passage for a direct refutation that the Mosaic covenant was by works:

Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. 11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance...16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. 18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Note, it's all of grace that they received the land.

Cheers,

Adam

Brothers,

It's one thing for somebody to disagree with the position, it's quite another to make charges against men like Boston, Owen, Witsius, Rollock, Ames, Turretin, etc. on down to men like Kline, Horton, Clark, etc. as not having a good grasp of covenant theology or as ignoring very popular passages of Scripture. I simply don't think those are fair assessments. You may not agree with their methodology or their conclusions, but at least recognize they are well-respected teachers within the Reformed faith. For example, I have the utmost respect for Rev. Winzer and while I disagree with him on this matter, I wouldn't dare say that he doesn't have a good understanding of covenant theology or that he is ignoring popular passages of Scripture...

By the way, I don't consider myself to be a "Klinean." I reject the framework hypothesis and while I appreciate the research that has gone into the study of the ANE suzerain treaties, I'm not yet sure about how much weight to give to these findings with regard to interpreting the covenants within Scripture. I say these things so that you all might know that there are people like me who hold to the republication view who are not die hard Klineans. I don't mind labels so long as they fit. So, feel free to call me a Calvinist, Covenanter, or Marrow Man, but the Klinean label doesn't fit. Okay, now back to the issue at hand.

(I might add, I would much rather have other more competent men take up and defend this position instead of me, but it seems they're all busy at the moment, so I'll do my best recognizing I may be in over my head )

In Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting two covenants, two mountains, and two mothers (to borrow from Horton). What is the basis of the contrast? Do we not see there a contrast of law to grace? Wasn't part of the Galatian heresy one where people had confused law with grace as the basis for salvation? Why does Paul bring up the two covenants, mountains, and women in this letter?

Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation?

Please note, I fully recognize the gracious elements of the overarching CoG. In fact, their disobedience did not nullify the eternal promises made to Abraham and his seed, 430 years earlier. By all means, that's gracious. Nevertheless, their disobedience led to the loss of a number of temporal blessings that were promised in the Mosaic covenant. They failed to stay true to their covenant oath:

Exodus 24:6-8 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words."

I will try to interact with the comments of this thread as I have opportunity. Like the rest of you, I'm quite busy, but this thread and this topic are of great interest to me, so I will try to give as much attention to it as I'm able. I hope this discussion will prove helpful to all of us as we seek to bring glory to our Lord as we study His Word.

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) here.

Owen on the Mosaic Covenant here.

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation?

According to the Westminster Standards, the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. The stipulation/condition/requirement of the covenant of grace is faith, since Adam down to today. The answer to your question is not disobedience per se. Read Hebrews 3. They died because they broke the covenant through unbelief. This is the same reason the exile took place. God covenanted with his people at Sinai and it was a covenant of grace. If they sinned, there was a solution to this. But if the people wouldn't believe, then they would be dealt with accordingly. Their lack of law-keeping was the result of unregenerate hearts. But the exile itself had nothing to do with their law-keeping, and everything to do with not believing.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

According to the Westminster Standards, the Mosaic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. The stipulation/condition/requirement of the covenant of grace is faith, since Adam down to today. The answer to your question is not disobedience per se. Read Hebrews 3. They died because they broke the covenant through unbelief. This is the same reason the exile took place. God covenanted with his people at Sinai and it was a covenant of grace. If they sinned, there was a solution to this. But if the people wouldn't believe, then they would be dealt with accordingly. Their lack of law-keeping was the result of unregenerate hearts. But the exile itself had nothing to do with their law-keeping, and everything to do with not believing.

Is not disobedience a derivative of unbelief? When I sin it is from the fact that I do not trust in God's grace, the work of Christ in what he has done on my behalf. John Piper's book Battling Unbelief covers this well. I commend it to you.

Rev. Bradley,

Thank you for your gracious interaction, and reminders about making sure we use the correct labels!

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

In Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting two covenants, two mountains, and two mothers (to borrow from Horton). What is the basis of the contrast? Do we not see there a contrast of law to grace? Wasn't part of the Galatian heresy one where people had confused law with grace as the basis for salvation? Why does Paul bring up the two covenants, mountains, and women in this letter?

Good questions, indeed! Let us take as an indisputable principal of Scripture interpretation that all may be harmonized. With that in mind, the same Scriptures tell us that Moses preached the gospel, and not the law as our salvation:
Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

If Moses preached the gospel, and as the gospel of John shows clearly, testified about Christ our savior, then what is Paul doing stating that Sinai (where Moses preached from) taught a false way of justification?

It appears to me that Moses and Christ both taught one way of salvation. Moses did not teach what the Judaizers taught, in other words. If Paul attacks Moses, he is a false prophet. If he attacks the Judaizers misunderstanding of Moses, he does the same thing that Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount (“you have heard that it was said” etc.). Paul does not argue against the Scriptural doctrine of justification as taught by Moses: HE ATTACKES THE PERVERSION OF IT BY THE JEWS.

For a man to read Moses as if he said what Paul attacks is a gross mishandling of Scripture, and sets the Holy Ghost against Himself. The basis of the contrast Paul makes between law and gospel was the error of the Galatian heretics, NOT God’s inspired Word through Moses His servant.

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

Now, recognizing not everybody agrees that the Mosaic covenant was a national and temporary covenant, I would ask this question: Why was Israel kicked out of the land of promise? Why did she ultimately lose her national status? Was it not due to her disobedience to the covenant stipulations as a nation?

First, there are two issues happening at once. First, there is the civil issue; second, there is the soteriological issue. As far as civil states are concerned, they are to be holy, and to obey the law of God. Blessings and curses accrue according as they obey or disobey (see Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy 28 for more on this). As George Mason said, civil societies do not have souls that live on after this life; therefore their rewards are all meted out in this world. Israel was kicked out of the land for their rebellion and lawlessness. The same reason why the Amorites and Perezites were kicked out of the land. God judges nations by their works, and blesses or curses them accordingly. This is biblical politics, not the doctrine of justification. This is the same in the New Covenant era as it was in the Old.

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

Please note, I fully recognize the gracious elements of the overarching CoG. In fact, their disobedience did not nullify the eternal promises made to Abraham and his seed, 430 years earlier. By all means, that's gracious. Nevertheless, their disobedience led to the loss of a number of temporal blessings that were promised in the Mosaic covenant. They failed to stay true to their covenant oath:

Exodus 24:6-8 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words."

Again, this confounds the civil with the soteriological. God also cursed the Canaanites for their wickedness, and curses America for her wickedness. This is a basic fact of how God set up the world to operate. This doesn’t mean that Moses taught a different view of justification, sanctification, adoption etc. Much to the contrary, it means that the God of Israel has established civil states, and holds them to the line.

Not sure if any of this totally on point, but I hope it helps.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Robbie Schmidtberger

Is not disobedience a derivative of unbelief? When I sin it is from the fact that I do not trust in God's grace, the work of Christ in what he has done on my behalf. John Piper's book Battling Unbelief covers this well. I commend it to you.

Yes, disobedience is a derivative of unbelief. But the covenant of grace isn't broken by disobedience. It's broken by unbelief. Hence their expulsion from the land. Israel's greatest sin was their apostasy. King David committed some horrendous sin but was not expunged from the land -- he had faith and repented.

Casey,

Nobody doubts the fact that those who died in the wilderness were an example to show the danger of unbelief. I fully agree with you there.

However, in Deut. 28, among other places, the threats of the Mosaic Covenant contain temporal judgments which include things like exile and loss of blessing in the land. The prophets are clear in their proclamation against Israel for her disobedience to the law contained in the Mosaic Covenant and they warned the people over and over again that God's judgment was about to come and it did when the Assyrians and the Babylonians overtook the people and the land... The Assyrians and Babylonians were used of the Lord to bring about the threats contained in that covenant. Were all the exiles unbelievers? No, but they all suffered the consequences of breaking the covenant that they swore to as a nation. As a national covenant, they suffered as a nation.

It is important to remember that Sinai was not a covenant after the fashion of the covenant of grant, instead it was of the suzerain vassal treaties. The cov't of grant was unilateral (like Gen 15.) Suzerain Vassal was where one party protected the other, if they agreed to keep the terms. If not, punishment was ensured.