Beth Ellen Nagle
Puritan Board Senior
I am trying to get a better grasp of what "re-publication" means and in what way does it affect the church in theology and practice. I hope to read The Law Is Not Of Faith soon.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Re-publication is an idea championed by the late Meredith Kline and currently, in some fashion or another, by Lee Irons, R. Scott Clark, and Michael Horton. There are many people who hold to this. It has a strong history within the reformed tradition.
It is the understanding that the Mosaic Covenant was a reproduction of the Adamic Covenant in the sense that it's primary focus was on law (i.e. probation). {this is true to an extent, yet the primary focus is grace. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt." are the words that preface the covenant God established in Ex. 20}
Probation in the Adamic Covenant/administration was the reality that Adam was made a moral agent capable of moral righteousness and unrighteousness. He failed that command given by God. Simply it is a command given by God. Carry that over to the Mosaic Covenant; there are many ramifications.
Many re-publication enthusiasts argue that much of the Mosaic Law was confined to the physical nation of Israel and not her spiritual continued counterpart, the church. For this reason theonomy does not stand. T. David Gordon, professor at Grove City College, argued this and more in a WTJ article. He argued that this is one reason that exclusive psalmody fails because they were songs written for a specific place and time within God's redemptive history.
Ask yourself one question given this explanation - How are you to read and understand Leviticus and other Mosaic books that reflect this Covenant? This hermeneutical factor helps one properly understand the diversity of God's redemptive acts within Scripture, and moreover, how God continues to operate in the same way.
"It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."
Its purpose was to point them to the one who could fulfill the Covenant of Works on their behalf the 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ. The most helpful question one can ask when interpreting Scripture is "what Covenant does this belong to? The Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace?" And to help one answer that question we need to ask "Who is doing the Work?" Even in the Covenant of Grace their is a legal element where perfect obedience is required but Christ does the Work in fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant of Works aka the legal requirement.
Its purpose was to point them to the one who could fulfill the Covenant of Works on their behalf the 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ. The most helpful question one can ask when interpreting Scripture is "what Covenant does this belong to? The Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace?" And to help one answer that question we need to ask "Who is doing the Work?" Even in the Covenant of Grace their is a legal element where perfect obedience is required but Christ does the Work in fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant of Works aka the legal requirement.
This very subject is being discussed by Reformed lay people, here:
Dispelling Some Myths of "Reformed Christianity"
Input, according to Holy Scripture, and Reformed Confessions, would be most appreciated.
Now, there is still the first use of the law in the Mosaic economy, but then the first use is still in effect today as well, so one cannot really say that, with regard to salvation, the Mosaic is essentially different than the new covenant.
(Rom 9:31) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
(Rom 9:32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
This hermeneutical factor helps one properly understand the diversity of God's redemptive acts within Scripture, and moreover, how God continues to operate in the same way.
Robbie wrote:
This hermeneutical factor helps one properly understand the diversity of God's redemptive acts within Scripture, and moreover, how God continues to operate in the same way.
I am not quite grasping this yet. Can you or anyone elaborate?
Robbie wrote:
This hermeneutical factor helps one properly understand the diversity of God's redemptive acts within Scripture, and moreover, how God continues to operate in the same way.
I am not quite grasping this yet. Can you or anyone elaborate?
Another way of saying this is, that there are many facets to how God works with his people.
Taking Luke 24 seriously everything within Scripture is all about Jesus. But how does Samson's birth teach us about the gospel? I can ask the same question for anything within Scripture. A major problem to the historical redemptive hermeneutic is how does this passage explain and point to the gospel. (something very helpful here is the "Gospel According to" series published by P and R.) But again Luke 24 says all Scripture is about Jesus.
Covenant theology helps us read Scripture by celebrating its diversity within the context of unity. We see how God worked with his people in exodus and exile. Those moments are infinitely applicable to our lives today. While God does not typically lead his people around with a cloud showing us to do; he does reveal his will to us.
does that help?
I've read part the way through "The Law is not of Faith". I find it a difficult read.
I haven't made up my mind on this, and great Reformed minds disagreed on it, anyway.
Certainly the Non-republication view seems simpler and seems to agree better with the WCF. Simplicity shouldn't be the only factor, anyway. Some have tried to make things too "simple" and treat the Covenant of Works as if it was purely and simply a Covenant of Grace
It's worth also printing this out and reading it before or after reading "The Law is not of Faith":-
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/defense-moses-confessional-critique-kline-karlberg-46245/
It's also worth reading R. Scott Clark at his page on a potted history of covenant theology. The Republication Thesis has revived somewhat partly as a response to the possible oversimplification of the covenants by Johnnie Murray, the Theonomists, Norman Shepherd and the FV. Johnnie Murray was orthodox; others have gone in unorthodox directions.
In a sense the Covenant of Works is always posited by Moses or Christ as the standard we cannot reach, to encourage us to look to God's grace. This does not mean that the Covenant of Works is an integral part of the Old Covenant or New Covenant.
E.g. Moses said to the Israelites,
You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:4-5)
This could mean that the statutes were life-giving in the sense that they offer the possibility of a real life, and if we follow them they are from one aspect a gracious provision, because by following them by grace we escape a horrible life of e.g. incest - in the context - and that isn't worth living.
If we take it to be a republication in some sort of the Covenant of Works, it may be purely hypothetical in order to encourage the Israelites to turn to grace.
In the same way, surely our Lord Jesus was being hypothetical when He e.g. offered life to the rich young ruler in return for keeping the commandments. We don't say that there was a republication of the covenant of works as an inherent part of the New Covenant because of that, do we?
Re the idea of the Republication of the Covenant of Works pertaining to the Israelites tenure in the land, this still involved grace as well as the fruits of grace, works, because unless enough of the Israelites approached God by grace and had their hearts and lives transformed, the nation was going to ignore the ethics and discipline God had given (including the many death penalties that divide theonomists from other Reformed people) and fail the test anyway.
There is also something akin to this in the New Covenant anyway, because unless enough of the members of God's visible church have their hearts transformed by God's grace and therefore bear fruit, and keep to the ethics and discipline Christ has given to the church, we're not going to see the growth of the church and advance of the church on earth (the Land) we want to see.
I'll finish "The Law is not of Faith", but I'm thinking that the republication thesis may not be necessary, may overly complicate matters from a few "rogue" texts, may not be taught in Scripture and may not be Confessional.
Interesting, though.
Republicationists of course do not deny that those under the Mosaic Covenant were saved by grace and do not deny that the Mosaic Covenant was largely or completely one of grace. So in this sense it's not dispensationalism, but some may see it as getting closer to dispensationalism in some sense.
But Republicationists believe that in some sense a works principle came alongside the grace principle in the Mosaic period to fulfill some purpose(s). There are different views here which makes it more complicated: the works aspect may have been an aspect of the Mosaic stage of the covenant of grace or a separate works covenant that came alongside the promise/grace covenant of Abraham.
Chapter VII
Of God's Covenant with Man
V. This covenant [the Covenant of Grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: 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 foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
Quote from Casey Bessette
To say that a "covenant of works" was made with national Israel requires a fair amount of finagling and reworking of the confessional definition of this theological term. The Confession states that the law was republished at Sinai (19.2), not a covenant of works.
It seems an infelicitous name for this concept, even if one holds to it, because of course Adam would have saved himself and his posterity eternally by works, but Republicationists do not mean that Israel or any Israelite could do this.
There seem to be a number of levels of confusion among Republicationists regarding this concept:-
(a) The name of the doctrine - The Republication of the Covenant of Works
(b) Many different ideas about how this Republication relates to the Covenant of Grace and/or the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in particular.
(c) Different ideas about its purpose and what it was intended to achieve.
To say that this covenant subserved the covenant is grace is really to say that it is not a covenant, but a dispensation. A covenant properly so called has the power of binding by itself the contracting parties, nor is it directed to another. If therefore that dispensation had respect to another (as it really did), it is a proof that it was not a different covenant in species, but only a different mode of economy, adapted to the time, place and state of the persons. XII.XII.XVII
It was really the same with the covenant made with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances--to wit, clothed as to external dispensation with the form of a covenant of works through the harsh promulgation of the law. (XII.XII.V)
Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."
The covenant made With Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the-curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they. sinned but in the least instance.
Brother, where do the Westminster Standards distinguish this "Covenant of Works aspect" in relation to the Mosaic covenant?To try to claim the Sinaitic Covenant is one of Grace without distinguishing the Covenant of Works aspect is careless.
I think Herman Witsius is helpful in describing it as a National Covenant of Works which drives the Israelites to Christ for Forgiveness, Mercy, and Grace. One of the quotes I find helpful is Paul's exclamation
Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."
To try to claim the Sinaitic Covenant is one of Grace without distinguishing the Covenant of Works aspect is careless.
-----Added 6/24/2009 at 02:52:03 EST-----
Beth,
You may find this review helpful. I'm looking forward to purchasing the book and reading it as well.
How can it be "careless"? Especially when the Westminster Divines plainly say that the Mosaic Administration (using Turretin's words) was but a dispensation of the One Covenant of Grace.
This quotation from Witsius is key:
The covenant made With Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the-curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they. sinned but in the least instance.
Brother, where do the Westminster Standards distinguish this "Covenant of Works aspect" in relation to the Mosaic covenant?To try to claim the Sinaitic Covenant is one of Grace without distinguishing the Covenant of Works aspect is careless.
Romans 2:12 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law."
Romans 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."
I think Herman Witsius is helpful in describing it as a National Covenant of Works which drives the Israelites to Christ for Forgiveness, Mercy, and Grace. One of the quotes I find helpful is Paul's exclamation
Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone."
To try to claim the Sinaitic Covenant is one of Grace without distinguishing the Covenant of Works aspect is careless.
-----Added 6/24/2009 at 02:52:03 EST-----
Beth,
You may find this review helpful. I'm looking forward to purchasing the book and reading it as well.
Wayne, you might think it wrong, but I certainly wouldn't call it "careless," as it is quite evident that people of all positions are in fact taking great care to express themselves accurately.
But more to the point, no one is denies that the law is republished, and that it is declared that "the man who does these things shall live in them." This does not, however, mean a re-striking of the covenant of works. The question is, Was a works-covenant made with Israel whereby she maintained or lost the land of Canaan (speaking simply). Two important answers come immediately to mind:
1.) If so, then how did Israel ever possess the land? If we say he accepted imperfect obedience, or a sincere, honest effort or desire to obedience, then how is this a covenant of works? A sincere faith and desire unto holiness is exactly how we describe the terms of the covenant of grace.
2.) The land was promised to Abraham and his seed (that is, those believing). I ask then, did Israel receive/maintain the land by works or by faith and promise?
In short, I don't find it helpful to speak of the Sinaitic covenant as a national Covenant of Works. Note well that this is not to say those who reject republication fail to see the "works element" of the covenant. For instance, see the Turretin quotes above. This is why the Mosaic covenant is referred to as a legal testament, or economy, or dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. It has the appearance of a covenant of works based on the rigor of the law and its overbearing yoke of carnal requirements, all the while simply being an "unusually administered" (to use Roberts' term) covenant of grace.
The Gentiles do in fact have "law", it is the divine moral Code, imprinted on every image-bearer. It has an exceeding close relation to the written Mosaic Law as v15 amply demonstrates.Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, ...
It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to drastically separate the law in the heart of even the Gentiles, and the Decalogue.Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other.
For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.
In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain.