__________
Nom. But, sir, methinks it is a strange thing that so small an offence, as eating of the forbidden fruit seems to be, should plunge the whole of mankind into such a gulf of misery.

Evan. Though at first glance it seems to be a small offence, yet, if we look more wistfully 5 upon the matter it will appear to be an exceeding great offence; for thereby intolerable injury was done unto God; as, first, His dominion and authority in his holy command was violated. Secondly, His justice, truth, and power, in his most righteous threatenings, were despised. Thirdly, His most pure and perfect image, wherein man was created in righteousness and true holiness, was utterly defaced. Fourthly, His glory, which, by an active service, the creature should have brought to him, was lost and despoiled. Nay, how could there be a greater sin committed than that, when Adam, at that one clap, broke all the ten commandments?

Nom. Did he break all the ten commandments, say you? Sir, I beseech you show me wherein.

Evan. 1. He chose himself another God when he followed the devil.

2. He idolized and deified his own belly; 6 as the apostle’s phrase is, “He made his belly his God.”

3. He took the name of God in vain, when he believed him not.

4. He kept not the rest and estate wherein God had set him.

5. He dishonoured his Father who was in heaven; and therefore his days were not prolonged in that land which the Lord his God had given him.

6. He massacred himself and all his posterity.

7. From Eve he was a virgin, but in eyes and mind he committed spiritual fornication.

8. He stole, like Achan, that which God had set aside not to be meddled with; and this his stealth is that which troubles all Israel,—the whole world.

9. He bare witness against God, when he believed the witness of the devil before him.

10. He coveted an evil covetousness, like Amnon, which cost him his life, (2 Sam 13), and all his progeny. Now, whosoever considers what a nest of evils here were committed at one blow, must needs, with Musculus, see our case to be such, that we are compelled every way to commend the justice of God, 7 and to condemn the sin of our first parents, saying, concerning all mankind, as the prophet Hosea does concerning Israel, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,” (Hosea 3:9).

” It is, of course, the gospel truth that God’s dealings with Noah found their ultimate explanation in the principle of God’s sovereign grace. This covenant grant to Noah came under the Covenant of Grace whose administration to fallen men deserving only the curse of the broken creational covenant [of works] (and Noah too was one of these fallen sons of Adam) was an act of God’s pure mercy in Christ. ”

This applies to God’s dealing with Abraham and Israel too. This shows clearly that Kerux is simply wrong about Kline. If, perhaps, some Klineans have not been as precise in every case, that remains to be seen.

The term “food law” is an apt description. The command was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No other command is in view. Adam & Eve would not have understood “creational law” or anything like that, for they did not have the knowledge of good and evil prior to their Fall. They only realized it afterward, after eating from the tree, after violating the food law — a simple law, easy to obey. Since it was a nominal law, it did not require any knowledge of good and evil. (That they were ashamed afterward shows that they had no knowledge of sin or evil prior to eating; i.e., the tree wasn’t just about wisdom or intellectual attainment).

>As Samuel Rutherford said, the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works because it’s made with sinners, whereas the COW was made with a perfect man, and required perfect fulfillment.

As usual your side forgets a certain Person called the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Jesus was able to fulfill the Covenant of Works.
————-

The Mosaic covenant could be a covenant of works for Jesus. This doesn’t mean it was a covenant of works for Israel (as per Rutherford’s point). For Israel it was a conditional political covenant.

Here is what is happening: one needs to have the ability to see the parts in relation to the whole. To have the whole one needs to have the entire Word of God in understanding. At least engage it whole. You’re wrestling with parts and can’t yet see the whole. Federal Theology requires parts in relation to the whole understanding. Not that that is some big attainment. It’s rather simple and elegant, as one would suspect biblical doctrine to be.
——

It appears to me you are using covenant or federal theology as a mantra, but are not acknowledging difficulties in its formulation or application.

Vern

First, was the command given in the garden a nominal food law, or was it in fact the moral law given in concise form? The Confession appears to say the latter (see 19.1-2).

Second, was the republication at Sinai a merit principle (yes — Deut. 28) that was in fact positively, if imperfectly obeyed? The anti-repubs argue, No, it was not obeyed, even imperfectly (except of course by Christ).

JRC

DGH: If you look at Sinai as republication, and have a natural law perspective on this, then the Mosaic law has a universal significance akin to the law given to Adam. VanDrunen argues that you can see this form of argument in Paul’s discusion of the law for Jews and Gentiles in Romans.

I’ll keep thinking on it. I had a good conversation with my pastor earlier today on this very topic — we’re starting a sermon series through Joshua. When Joshua is told individually to not let this book of the Law depart from his mouth, and be careful to do all that is in it, and he will have success — how does this fit in with merit over against the obedience of faith?

There are several issues to think through:

(1) Does it make sense to think of Israel as a type of Adam (the first Adam), since the antitype has already come and gone? That’s an odd and unique kind of typology, that skips out on all the “fulfillment” aspect.

(2) We’re thinking about Law in terms of its functions here. The Second Use is as a tutor, leading to Christ. That’s the sense that I get from Paul in Romans. What you’re suggesting is the Law as means of blessings and cursings, in a quasi-typological function. And I think that would be a different, fourth use of the Law (assuming I understand correctly … not guaranteed).

(3) What *is* the proper relationship of wisdom to the Law? As I understand you,

wisdom : natural law :: obedience : law.

But there’s at least one way in which they differ. To break the Law of God at one point is to break the whole thing. But to break natural law at one point is to substantially leave the rest intact. That is: we can have a skilled mathematician who nevertheless cheats on his taxes. Or an honest citizen who can’t do math. But the failures in one endeavor don’t take away from successes in another … which is why Tiger Woods still has corporate sponsorship from Nike and Electronic Arts.

So I don’t know. More thought needed.

Have a great Sunday,
JRC

The phrase ‘food law’ is flippant and not serious. The command had to do with valuing the Word of God or the word of the devil. The Bible tells us Jesus fulfilled what Adam failed to fulfill. Jesus didn’t fulfill a mere ‘food law.’ Think about that. (No, really, think about that.)

>As Samuel Rutherford said, the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works because it’s made with sinners, whereas the COW was made with a perfect man, and required perfect fulfillment.

As usual your side forgets a certain Person called the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Jesus was able to fulfill the Covenant of Works.

Here is what is happening: one needs to have the ability to see the parts in relation to the whole. To have the whole one needs to have the entire Word of God in understanding. At least engage it whole. You’re wrestling with parts and can’t yet see the whole. Federal Theology requires parts in relation to the whole understanding. Not that that is some big attainment. It’s rather simple and elegant, as one would suspect biblical doctrine to be.

>As Samuel Rutherford said, the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works because it’s made with sinners, whereas the COW was made with a perfect man, and required perfect fulfillment.

As usual your side forgets a certain Person called the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Jesus was able to fulfill the Covenant of Works.

Here is what is happening: one needs to have the ability to see the parts in relation to the whole. To have the whole one needs to have the entire Word of God in understanding. At least engage it whole. You’re wrestling with parts and can’t yet see the whole. Federal Theology requires parts in relation to the whole understanding. Not that that is some big attainment. It’s rather simple and elegant, as one would suspect biblical doctrine to be.

Israel’s relevance to China then is a type of Adam’s relationship to all those born of ordinary generation from him.

But don’t hold me to this because, as Bob knows, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Hi Christian, I thought republication had to do with the idea that the whole of the Mosaic law was present (somehow) in the food law given to Adam. Scott Clark summarized it as “the giving of the Law at Sinai was a ‘re-publication’ of the Law given in the garden to Adam as part of the covenant of works.” (Heidelblog site.)

Clark goes on: “They thought this way because they had a doctrine of natural or creational law, i.e., there is a moral law that was given in the garden that is reflected in the law given at Sinai.”

This is the point anti-repubs deny. A food law is a food law. It is not creational law, nor the Mosaic code, nor even the 10 commandments. It’s just a food law, tout court.

Republicationists have replaced the nominal food law of Eden with a full-blow “creational law” theory. As I said, I think this is motivated by sabbatarianism, and really has nothing to do with JBFA.

I think Clark is right that the republication idea is taught in the WCF, but that does not mean the WCF is right. As Samuel Rutherford said, the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works because it’s made with sinners, whereas the COW was made with a perfect man, and required perfect fulfillment.

Clark’s position is to change the idea of what a covenant of works is — he makes it less exacting when applied to land. I don’t think that’s really necessary, and it is only a consequence of the republication idea — that the Mosaic covenant is a repub of the COW

The Mosaic covenant is like the Adamic covenant only in the sense that it was conditional. But that only makes it a POLITICAL covenant, not a covenant of works (requiring exact obedience). The conditionality in the Mosaic covenant shows that it is not a covenant of grace either.

IOW, the Mosaic covenant was unique.

None of this has anything to do with imputation, or JBFA. Or at least you haven’t shown that it does.

Vern