Mosaic Covenant = Republication of Cov't of Works?

[Casey]

I am interested in hearing other PB members' thoughts on this topic. I don't consider it a confessional position, and so I don't really consider it Reformed . . . but, some people in the Reformed camp are propogating this idea.

For example, if we look at WCF 7.3-5, we read:

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

5. This 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.​

Now, on the basis of these sections, it seems obvious that the idea of the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works is clearly not compatible with the Confession. So, why do some Reformed theologians nevertheless believe contrary to the Confession?

 

[RamistThomist]

Last year, maybe around October, this came up. Peter Gray, I think, had a really good rebuttal to the Repub CoW. Somewhere in the archives...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If someone says that the Mosaic administration is NOTHING but the CoW republished, then that is improper.

However, it is accurate (and Confessional, see 19.1&2) to recognize that the moral law is no different than the old CoW demand for perfection of life. 19.3 points us to the ceremonies of the Law as the locus of grace instruction under Moses.

Thomas Boston, http://www.covenantofgrace.com/boston_sinai_covenant.htm , also teaches that the CoG is clearly found in the Preamble to the Decalog--"I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Thus, the CoG forms the basis and context for such a "republication."

So, this idea of "republication" cannot be the sole, or even the chief lens, by which to evaluate the character of the Mosaic administration. It was the error of the Pharisees to elevate law-keeping to undue prominence within the Law-administration.

But republication is not strictly improper.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There is a long-ish footnote on this in CJPM, that should be expanded some day. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works.

I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.

rsc

 

[Archlute]

Herman Witsius has a good exposition of the dual elements of the CoW/CoG as found within the Mosaic economy in his The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man book 4, chapter 4, sections 47-57.

Also, Reformed theologians of the past, such as Witsius, Turretin, and Charles Hodge (in his commentary on 1 or 2 Corinthians, I can't remember which at the moment) among others, have seen the Mosaic Covenant as a CoW on the national level with Israel, relating God's blessings in the land to their obedience, and enacting judgment and rejection from the land upon their disobedience.

 

[Casey]

There is a long-ish footnote on this that should be expanded some day in CJPM. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works.

I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.

rsc

Can you explain what misunderstanding might be the source of the contemporary hostility, in your opinion? And, how such a view can be reconciled with the Confession?

 

[crhoades]

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ogy & Justification/Ligons_covtheology/08.htm

Lig Duncan:

... And for Dispensationalists the Mosaic Covenant is basically a repetition of the Covenant of Works.

Now Covenant Theologians have described the covenant with Moses differently over the years, and there has been some confusion over the this issue even amongst Reformed Theologians. But in general, while Reformed Theologians acknowledge that there are aspects of the Covenant of Moses or the Covenant of Law, which reflect some of the language and ideas of the Covenant of Works, nevertheless, the Covenant of Law, or the Covenant of Moses, or the Mosaic Economy, is squarely within the stream of the Covenant of Grace. It is not an alternate option to the Covenant of Works given to us by God in the Old Testament It is part of the Covenant of Grace. It is not saying, “Well, okay, if you don’t get saved by faith as under Abraham, you can try law under Moses.” That is not the point.

 

[Casey]

If someone says that the Mosaic administration is NOTHING but the CoW republished, then that is improper.

However, it is accurate (and Confessional, see 19.1&2) to recognize that the moral law is no different than the old CoW demand for perfection of life. 19.3 points us to the ceremonies of the Law as the locus of grace instruction under Moses.

Thomas Boston, http://www.covenantofgrace.com/boston_sinai_covenant.htm , also teaches that the CoG is clearly found in the Preamble to the Decalog--"I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Thus, the CoG forms the basis and context for such a "republication."

So, this idea of "republication" cannot be the sole, or even the chief lens, by which to evaluate the character of the Mosaic administration. It was the error of the Pharisees to elevate law-keeping to undue prominence within the Law-administration.

But republication is not strictly improper.

Isn't saying "the same law was republished" different from saying "it is a republication of the CoW"?

I mean, following the logic that, since the law itself was published in the Mosaic Covenant it therefore is a republication of the CoW . . well, then even the New Covenant is a republication of the CoW . . ? (Hopefully I'm making myself clear here . . .)

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

There is a long-ish footnote on this that should be expanded some day in CJPM. There is considerable evidence from the 17th century that republication was a widely held notion. It was part of the Reformed argument for the covenant of works.

I have a strong suspicion that much of the contemporary hostility to the doctrine of republication is grounded in misunderstanding.

rsc

 

[Casey]

Care to expand on that?

 

[MW]

In Puritan theology, the moral law promises life upon the fulfilling and threatens death upon the breach of it. So did the covenant of works. Hence some divines taught that the publication of the moral law was a republication of the covenant of works of sorts. However, they always qualified that this republication was subservient to the covenant of grace, and that it was never to be conceived of as a pure administration of works.

There are numerous levels of theological strata involved in this question. Exegetically, there is the typical nature of the Mosaic covenant and of Israel. Likewise, one must settle the question whether the apostle Paul speaks hypothetically, as a polemical answer to Jewish self-justification, or really, indicating that self-justification is held forth as an actual possbility, when in Rom. and Gal. he quotes the demand of the law, Do this and live.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Yes, I think Rev Winzer is quite correct. The doctrine of re-publication was not a way of saying that Israel could be justified by law-keeping. Rather, those who taught re-publication meant to say that, in certain respects, what was promulgated at Sinai is substantially the same as that which was promulgated in the garden, i.e., the moral law and it was republished for similar, but not identical reasons, as it was given in the Garden.

Adam was under a covenant of works: do and live. He could do and live. He didn't and died and we all with him.

The law given at Sinai was given after the fall. The Reformed theologians of the 17th century were not Pelagian. They did not move from Adam to us in regard to justification, only in regard to sin.

Thus, it never entered their minds, so far as I know, that anyone could be justified by law-keeping. Rather, by re-publication, they meant to say that the law was imposed on Israel, in part, as way of placing their status in the land or as a national people on a legal footing.

This notion, in turn, was part of the broader Reformed conception of national Israel as a temporary, typical (see WCF 19) arrangement. Republication was bound up with the typological status of Israel.

The legal basis for Israel's expulsion from the land and their forfeiture of their special status and the national people of God was their failure to obey God.

All of this, however, was subservient to the operation of the covenant of grace which was then identical in substance to the covenant of grace as Abraham knew it and as we know it today.

rsc

 

[Casey]

In saying that the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the CoG and a republication of the CoW, does that make it (for those holding this view) not an administration of the CoG?

 

[Me Died Blue]

In saying that the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the CoG and a republication of the CoW, does that make it (for those holding this view) not an administration of the CoG?

I think the point is that the CoW aspect of the Mosaic Covenant is subservient to the Mosaic Covenant's primary essence as an administration of the CoG.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.

 

[Scott Bushey]

in certain respects, what was promulgated at Sinai is substantially the same as that which was promulgated in the garden, i.e., the moral law and it was republished for similar, but not identical reasons, as it was given in the Garden.

This is the way I understand it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.

Did you just reply to the OP or did you make this statement after reading through this entire thread?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Reading what Revs. Buchanan, Clark, and Winzer have written, I'm reminded of Galatians 3:
[KJV]Galatians 3:19-25[/KJV]

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

There is an unmistakable lesson from reading Galatians that the giving of the Law itself has a character distinct from the unbreakable promise that is based completely on faith. "Do this and live..." as noted, is a command that unfallen Adam was unable to achieve. How much more was "Do this and live..." supposed to have driven the fallen man to his knees in recognition that he could not accomplish this? The simple analogy I give is that the Law served as a sort of prison for God's people that ought to have caused them to long for a deliverer. Instead of seeing the prison for what it was, they began to think that they were not in prison at all but had achieved the end. When the door was flung open with Christ, some who had seen their deliverance from afar walked into maturity while others became enamored with their "old home".

In my estimation, both the COW and the Mosaic Law share the same core principle that God's nature is Holy, He is Creator, and we owe Him perfect obedience. Certainly there are unmistakable pictures of Christ in the mediatory work of priests and sacrifices.

It is interesting, is it not, that Paul calls Christ the Second Adam in that He fulfills the COW but repeatedly in his Epistles, he points to the Law as the thing accusing us?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Was not God expecting Israel to obey the Law? Did they not say that they would do this, also?

“All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” (Exodus 24.7)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Was not God expecting Israel to obey the Law? Did they not say that they would do this, also?

“All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” (Exodus 24.7)

Yes He did expect Israel to obey the Law. Yes they said they would do so.

It does not change the nature of the case.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How much more was "Do this and live..." supposed to have driven the fallen man to his knees in recognition that he could not accomplish this? The simple analogy I give is that the Law served as a sort of prison for God's people that ought to have caused them to long for a deliverer. Instead of seeing the prison for what it was, they began to think that they were not in prison at all but had achieved the end. When the door was flung open with Christ, some who had seen their deliverance from afar walked into maturity while others became enamored with their "old home".

Rich, this seems to be you saying that it was impossible for Israel to obey the Law, and that its purpose never involved the possibility of them obeying it at all.

 

[MW]

From an expository viewpoint, Rom. 10:5-8 perhaps provides the clearest linking of the covenant of works with the covenant of grace through Moses. If memory serves correctly, Calvin comes closest to the Puritan view in his commentary on this passage.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, this seems to be you saying that it was impossible for Israel to obey the Law, and that its purpose never involved the possibility of them obeying it at all.

Well, yes, I am saying that it was impossible for them to obey the Law perfectly, hence their need for a Messiah. You asked whether God expected them to obey it and whether they agreed to do so.

That's a different issue.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Well, yes, I am saying that it was impossible for them to obey the Law perfectly, hence their need for a Messiah. You asked whether God expected them to obey it and whether they agreed to do so.

That's a different issue.

But part of keeping the Law involved the expectation that they would fail it. Forgiveness and repentance was provided for from the beginning. Of course no one can obey every jot and tittle of the Law all their life (save from Christ), but this is expected and provided for in sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness, which was in the Law from the beginning...

“And YHWH heard your words, when you spoke to me. And YHWH said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:28-29)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But part of keeping the Law involved the expectation that they would fail it. Forgiveness and repentance was provided for from the beginning. Of course no one can obey every jot and tittle of the Law all their life (save from Christ), but this is expected and provided for in sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness, which was in the Law from the beginning...

We're not using terms equivalently. Certainly forgiveness and repentance are provided for but it would be improper for a man to claim they have obeyed the statutes contained therein. He can state that his breach of the statutes was atoned for in the sacrifice provided but, even in that, the believer ought to have been looking in hope to a deliverer from the bondage of the Law as Galatians 3 explains.

I actually believe that there is a sense in which the pure logistics of the sacrificial system should have been very instructive to Israel given the frequency with which men sin and the sacrifices provided for it. The number of trips to the sanctuary and the number of animals needed to atone for all their sins would have been crushing indeed.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Its pretty unconfessional to say that Sinai is a republication of a covenant of works.

How exactly?

For what it's worth, not that I know anything, here is the footnote I mentioned earlier. All these guys were "unconfessional"?

Wollebius, Compendium, 1.21.17. It was widely held among the Reformed orthodox that the Decalogue was a republication of the covenant of works. To give but a few examples, John Owen, Herman Witsius, Leonard van Rijssen, Johannes Marckius, Peter Van Mastricht and Thomas Boston taught it. See Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (1803; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990), 1,336–337; Leonard van Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae (Amsterdam: 1695.), 89. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 6.85. Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum (Amsterdam, 1749), 345–346; Peter Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 3 vols (Utrecht: 1699), 3.12.23. Pace D. Patrick Ramsey, “In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg,” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2005): 395, Boston appealed to the logic implied by the grammar of WCF 19.1 and 2. 19.1 which reasserts the doctrine of 7.2, that God “gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.” 19.2 says, “This Law, after his fall…was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments….” (Articles, 30–31). The phrase “covenant of works,” in 19.1, is appositive to the noun “Law.” Thus the “Law” is reckoned here as a covenant of works. Thus when, 19.2 establishes “This law” as the subject of the verb to be, “was delivered,” the antecedent of “this Law” can be none other than the “Law” defined as a covenant of works in 19.1. This reading of the confession caused Boston, in his notes in E. F. The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Scarsdale, NY: Westminster Discount Books, n.d.), 58, to exclaim, “How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see.” These same theologians also held that Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. The doctrine of unity of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of republication were regarded as complementary not antithetical.

 

[MW]

Well noted, Rich. There was a yearly remembrance of sin in the day of atonement. Heb. 8-10 shows the excellency of the new covenant (which I understand to be a new administration of the covenant of grace) to consist in the fact that God no longer remembers sin, i.e., by requiring continual sacrifices. Sin has been dealt with decisively and finally in the death of the Christ.

 

[MW]

I agree with Prof. Clark's historical comments. However, the interpretation of the Confession cannot be correct, which would define the moral law as delivered upon Mount Sinai as a covenant works. First, because that same moral law forever binds all, as well justified persons as others, sect. 5. Yet it is expressly stated that true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, sect. 6. Secondly, because the Catechisms consider the prologue of the ten commandments as providing the covenantal and redemptive context of obedience to the ten commandments.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

As I said, it's a covenant of works in a very highly restricted sense, relative to the national covenant, as it were, of the Israelites. Not as a matter of justification.

I agree with Prof. Clark's historical comments. However, the interpretation of the Confession cannot be correct, which would define the moral law as delivered upon Mount Sinai as a covenant works. First, because that same moral law forever binds all, as well justified persons as others, sect. 5. Yet it is expressly stated that true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, sect. 6. Secondly, because the Catechisms consider the prologue of the ten commandments as providing the covenantal and redemptive context of obedience to the ten commandments.

 

[MW]

As I said, it's a covenant of works in a very highly restricted sense, relative to the national covenant, as it were, of the Israelites. Not as a matter of justification.

Prof. Clark, I don't doubt your qualification of the doctrine, and I accept it as valid with that qualification. It's your interpretation of WCF 19:2 which is implausible, given what the chapter goes on to say and given the Catechism's emphasis on covenant and redemption in the prologue of the commandments. It is safe to say that the confession is not concerned with the nature of the law as it pertains to national Israel in chap. 19:2, but as it is a republication of the only rule of righteousness to all men.