The release of the new book Merit and Moses, a critique of the republication doctrine (that the Mosaic covenant was “in some sense” a republication typologically of the covenant of works) got me thinking about a certain anomaly in contemporary Reformed circles regarding a certain Mr. Murray (his given name was John and he did not have the extra one of Courtney). The endorsements of this book show an arresting feature of the Westminster Seminary tradition and reception of Geerhardus Vos.
After Vos, his successors broke into two camps, one represented by Murray, the other by Meredith Kline, who took markedly different views of covenant theology. After Murray and Kline, came Norman Shepherd, Richard Gaffin, and Bob Strimple. They pretty much all sided with Murray against Kline on matters of moment. And then came VanDrunen, Horton, and Fesko. They followed Kline and have been taking their lumps ever since.
Generally speaking, the anti-republicationists are anti-Kline and pro-Murray. Here’s a sampling:
For the past thirty years, a shift in Reformed covenant theology has been percolating under the hot Southern California sun in Escondido. Atop the bluff of a former orange grove, a quiet redefinition of the Sinaitic covenant administration as a typological covenant of works, complete with meritorious obedience and meritorious reward has been ripening. The architect of this paradigm shift was the late Meredith G. Kline, who taught at Westminster Escondido (WSCal) for more than 20 years. Many of Kline’s colleagues, former students (several now teaching in Escondido) and admirers (Mark Karlberg, T. David Gordon, etc.) have canonized his novel reconstruction of the Mosaic covenant—it is “not of faith”, but of works and meritorious works at that, albeit ‘typological’. What may now be labeled the “Escondido Hermeneutic” or “Kline Works-Merit Paradigm” has succeeded in cornering an increasing share of the Reformed covenant market in spite of its revisionism and heterodoxy. This newfangled paradigm has managed to fly beneath the radar of most Reformed observers, in part because of the aggressively militant demeanor and rhetoric of its advocates and defenders. Especially vitriolic have been attacks by the Kline acolytes upon Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin. . . . (1)
While it is certainly true that Murray clearly and self-consciously broke with the majority of the Reformed tradition on several points of doctrine, his teaching on the nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant was not one of them. In fact, a strong case can be made that his position on the essential nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant represented the mainstream consensus of Reformed theologians. Furthermore, some of Murray’s key exegetical observations (which, incidentally, these authors simply pass over rather than critically engage) lend his thesis strong support. (63)
Now the endorsements for the anti-republicationist book:
“The doctrine of Republication has a Reformed pedigree. But in what sense? Recent understandings of Republication sometimes depart significantly from what one finds among Reformed theologians in the Post-Reformation periods. It is to the merit of these authors for dealing with this thorny issue by offering some important insights into the precise nature of the debate, such as discussions on merit and justice and the nature of typology. I hope all involved in the debate will give this book a careful and sympathetic reading—at least more careful and sympathetic than those who have publicly opposed Professor John Murray on this issue.”
—Mark Jones, Senior Minister, Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA), Vancouver, BC“I strongly recommend that everyone interested in the notion of Republication read the important book, Merit and Moses. By focusing on the guilt of every child of Adam and the only merit recognized by a holy God, the authors cut to the heart of Republication’s error. They show that to be the case by an insightful study of the Scriptures, of our most revered theologians—for example, John Murray, too often misunderstood and maligned by Republicationists—and of the Reformed confessions, showing that the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”
—Robert B. Strimple, President emeritus and Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA“In recent years, a number of Reformed writers have advanced the claim that the Mosaic covenant or economy was in some sense a republication of the covenant of works. According to these writers, the Republication doctrine was a common emphasis in the history of Reformed theology, and even forms an important part of the basis for the biblical doctrine of justification. The authors of this volume present a clear and compelling case against this claim. Rather than a reaffirmation of a forgotten, integral feature of Reformed theology, the authors argue that the modern republication doctrine seems inconsistent with the historic Reformed understanding of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. A helpful contribution.”
—Cornelis P. Venema, President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, IN“This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology—namely, that during the Mosaic era of the covenant of grace, in pointed antithesis to grace and saving faith in the promised Messiah, the law given to Israel at Sinai was to function pedagogically as a typological overlay of the covenant of works made with Adam, by which Israel’s retention of the land and temporal blessings were made dependent on maintaining a level of meritorious obedience (works), reduced in its demand to accommodate their sinfulness. A particular strength in my judgment is their showing that the abiding demands of God’s holiness preclude meritorious obedience that is anything less than perfect, and so the impossibility of a well-meant offer to sinners of the covenant of works in any sense.”
—Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA
Let the reader decide.
But also consider this. Mr. Murray was a strong proponent of exclusive psalmody, arguably the lone holdout of prominence in the OPC. And yet those who follow Murray on covenant theology are willing to argue quite decidedly against singing psalms only or even singing the imprecatory psalms (about which Murray had no qualms). Dick Gaffin recently wrote:
Among my continuing reservations about the Psalter-Hymnal project (March issue), here I’m only able to raise one concern about its commitment to total psalmody. The imprecations in Psalm 137, among others, have in view the Old Testament situation, when God’s covenant people were one nation, a single geopolitical entity (Israel), and their enemies were likewise ethnically and geopolitically defined (Babylon and Edom here). But now, after Christ’s finished work, that spiritual enmity, inseparably national, has ceased. Now the realization of God’s eternal saving purpose, anticipated throughout the Old Testament, is universal. His elect are no longer found only within Israel, but within every nation. Under the new covenant, the church is “in Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) in a way it was not under the old: no longer are Jews in holy hostility towards non-Jews; now, in Christ, they are reconciled to each other (Eph. 2:11–22).
I recognize that the ethnic references like those in Psalm 137 are not only literal but also typological. Akin to the symbolic references to Babylon in Revelation, they point forward to the final destruction of the enemies of God’s people. Still, singing explicitly genocidal curses in public worship, without a whole lot of preparatory explanation (and perhaps even with that), risks leaving the impression that the congregation is calling on God for the large-scale destruction of people with Gentile ethnicity like most of us in the New Testament church. (20-21)
(Could there be some kind of ambivalence at work here with typological readings of the OT?)
So what I am wondering is what would happen to this argument against total psalmody if Orthodoxy Presbyterians knew it departed from Mr. Murray. I mean, if it is fair game to raise concerns about views that do not follow Murray’s reading of creation or the Mosaic covenant, why is that okay when it comes to Murray’s singing of David? Maybe the OPC needs to kick away the crutches, prepare for sacred cows to be wounded, and through delegated assemblies let word and Spirit do their work.
Old Life 
@ DGH:
Patrick was a little hard to read, but I think he was angling for the ad absurdum.
As in, if WCF 30.3 is not a works principle, then neither is the destruction of Israel.
LikeLike
D.G, perish the thought, it was hard enough giving up sweets.
LikeLike
@ David:
Okay, so I would agree with that in at least one sense.
But now I’m a little fuzzy on your view again. Are you saying that
(A) the Decalogue is a part of the external administration of the MC, but not actually a part of the MC?
(B) the Decalogue is a part of the MC, with regard to its administration?
(C) other?
LikeLike
I would say that the Decalogue is a perfect rule of righteousness with various uses (summarized in WLC 94-97). For the regenerate, it serves as a rule of life.
LikeLike
No objection to those, but the salient question is whether you consider the Decalogue to be included in the Mosaic covenant or is it rather entirely external to it?
LikeLike
The question amounts to precisely the same thing as asking what the relationship is between the Decalogue and the covenant of grace (in both OT and NT administrations). Again, I think the answer is to be found in the various uses of the law: For all men (i.e., whether or not they’ve entered into the CoG) it serves as a perfect rule of righteousness, helping them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience (WLC 95). For the unregenerate (i.e., those who haven’t yet entered into the CoG) it serves as a pedagogue, awakening their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and driving them to Christ, or, if they continue in sin, leaving them inexcusable (WLC 96). For the regenerate (i.e., those who’ve entered into the CoG) it serves as a rule of life, “to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience” (WLC 97). Does that help any?
LikeLike
No, I am asking a more basic question: when you speak about the Mosaic Covenant proper, is the Decalogue on two tablets of stone included in that term?
Sorry to drill down, but I’ve previously made several mistaken assumptions about your view, so..,
LikeLike
Yes. Strictly speaking the CoG is grace and not law but in the CoG law and grace sweetly comply (WCF 19.7).
LikeLike
OK. I think I’m clear on where you are.
What I think I’m clear about is that you are a Klinean republicationist who doesn’t know that he is one. 🙂
What I really mean is that the view you’ve articulated here is republication (as I understand it) while quibbling about certain terms, yet substituting synonyms for those terms.
And the view that you have staunchly opposed, while worthy of opposition, is not the actual republication view. And the largest clue that this is so is your insistence that repubs are really talking about two separate covenants, when in fact we are fairly certain that we are not.
Let’s consider what you accept. You accept that
* The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace,
* That within that Mosaic Covenant is a legal economy
* The legal economy operates on a principle of “do this and live”
* That the purpose of the legal economy is pedagogical, not to merit eternal life.
* That Deut 28 – 30 (that is, the land sanctions) are included in that legal economy.
* That the promise of land was typological, pointing to Christ.
At this point, you have all of the features of a republicationist. Only one thing you lack: to realize that “typological merit principle” is a synonym for “do this and live.”
Now you say that repubs have to be talking about two separate covenants, since they hold that the typological republication operates on a different condition from the CoG (“do this and live” rather than “believe and be saved”). Yet you yourself recognize that Turretin’s view has a legal economy that operates on a different condition from the CoG, and yet is an administration of the CoG and not the substance of it.
So you don’t actually have a problem with “different conditions.” Instead, you have a quibble with the term “strict merit”, not with the actual concept that underlies it.
And the quibble is understandable in one sense. If in fact Kline (or I) were saying that Israel could find favor with God by their meritorious obedience, then we would be anathema.
“Finding favor”, however, is a matter of justification, which is precisely what the legal economy does not do.
No, the legal principle of “do this and live” is a matter of *living in the land* on the ground of *doing this and living.*
No more, no less.
LikeLike
Jeff, “What I really mean is that the view you’ve articulated here is republication (as I understand it) while quibbling about certain terms, yet substituting synonyms for those terms.”
ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding dillydarnDING!!!
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks, I appreciate your desire to have me back in the fold, as it were. While what you say has surface plausibility, I can’t avoid the question: If I am now (unbeknownst to myself) a Klinean republicationist (when I am militantly opposing the position), then what was I back when I was militantly advocating for it?
Nice try, but I continue to think rather that (and in spite of our host’s Quasimodo-like display of glee over your conclusion) the problem is (possibly?) that many who side with the republicationists (yourself included): (1) have not yet fully grasped what’s actually being disputed (by the critics), (2) think that some things are in dispute that aren’t, and (3) side with the republicationists on the basis of their own misunderstanding. (All these things were certainly true of me back when I was on the republicationist side.)
Therefore, I want to continue to underscore the fact (as I perceive it) that what is being opposed by the critics is actually a very specific and narrowly defined position that (as far as I can tell) is unprecedented in, and incompatible with, historic Reformed theology.
So just for fun, and because I hoped it might be helpful, I decided to try to clarify the state of the question in this controversy (as I see it). However I want to make it abundantly clear (in case there was ever any doubt) that I am just a common church member trying to work through these issues for myself. IOW, in what follows (as well as everything that came before) I don’t represent anyone except yours truly….
In compiling the following list (a work in progress), I did my best to be concise yet as comprehensive as I could. I think some on the side of the republicationists would be surprised (if they were actually still reading) at some of the things that are NOT actually in dispute in this controversy. So here goes….
I. The question is not …
1. whether the moral law, the matter of the covenant of works, was republished at Sinai,
2. whether the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works featured conspicuously in the OT administration,
3. whether some Reformed theologians spoke in terms of a republication of the covenant of works at Sinai,
4. whether Noah, Abraham and David typified Christ, and their exemplary obedience typified Christ’s perfect and meritorious obedience (imputed to us in our justification),
5. whether the temporal Israelite kingdom typified the eternal heavenly kingdom, Canaan typified the blessedness of heaven, Israel’s relative holiness typified the perfected holiness of the consummate state, and temporal judgments and rewards during the Mosaic period typified eternal weal and woe,
6. whether, in keeping with #5, and because the typological message had to remain clear that in the consummate state of heaven, blessedness will be inseparably connected with holiness, Israel was required to maintain a typologically readable level of corporate obedience in order to retain possession of the land,
7. or whether the aforementioned typological significance of temporal judgments ceased with the onset of the NT administration.
Not one of the above items is in dispute!
II. Rather, the controversy lies in the following questions (most of which concern substance, a few of which concern terminology) …
A. I’ll start with the questions over matters of substance:
1. whether sinners can merit (in any sense) anything but condemnation,
2. whether God has ever entered into a legal (inheritance by works) covenant with sinners,
3. whether the Mosaic covenant was a substantially distinct covenant from the covenant of grace (which is affirmed by some republicationists),
(The next three are closely are closely related.)
4. whether the Mosaic covenant was substantially distinct from the new covenant (which is apparently affirmed even by those republicationists who deny #3, i.e., when they assert that the former could be broken but not the latter),
5. whether a works principle of inheritance (in any sense) can subsist within a gracious covenant (which is affirmed by those republicationists who deny #3),
6. whether it is reasonable that all the elements of a covenant (parties, promise and condition) should exist without an actual covenant also existing (which is affirmed, at least implicitly, by those republicationists who deny #3).
7. whether Israel’s exile is properly explained in terms of their having broken a typological covenant of works,
8. whether (in connection with #7) Israel’s (or an Israelite’s) forfeiture of outward privilege on account of apostasy was a substantially different phenomenon than a New Testament church’s (or Christian’s) forfeiture of outward privilege for the same reason,
9. whether temporal judgments were absolutely limited to the OT administration,
10. whether blessing conditioned on obedience necessarily implies a works principle of inheritance,
11. and (in connection with #10) whether, continuing into the New Testament, holiness does not continue to be the (non-meritorious, non-instrumental and God-enabled) condition of possessing the promised inheritance.
B. Now for questions over matters of terminology:
1. whether a legal (inheritance by works) covenant is appropriately styled “an administration of the covenant of grace” (which is affirmed by those republicationists who deny #3 above),
2. whether a covenant with a different promise and condition than the covenant of works (and thus a substantially different covenant) ought to be styled a “republication” of it,
These things the republicationists affirm but their critics deny.
There it is folks, as always, your comments, corrections and feedback are welcome….
LikeLike
Good, thanks. With regard to “bringing you back in the fold”, I would rather say it thus: You’re already in the fold. But are you (possibly) beating the air?
Keep in mind that the prize in the repub/anti-repub fight has to do with sanctification. Are we sanctified by grace, or by some combination of grace and law-keeping?
That’s why the charges of “antinomianism” and “neonomianism” keep popping up in the larger debate, though not between us, thank the Lord.
And in particular, the evangelical habit that has slid over into the PCA is to enumerate the means of grace thus:
* Word
* Sacrament
* Prayer
* Accountability
One of these is not like the others. But anti-repub is a much more congenial environment for this view because it views temporal sanctions in the NT to be the same in kind (but not degree) as the temporal sanctions in the OT, whence it follows that temporal sanctions are “gracious”, and thus are an acceptable means of grace.
I don’t know where you are on this question, but having seen it in action, I believe this is a line that needs to be drawn, regardless of how we cut the covenant cake.
So I would add another question to your list: #14: Whether God’s discipline of individuals under the New Covenant is of the same kind or different kind as the punishment of individuals under the sanctions of the Law?
LikeLike
With regard to I., I agree that these are not under dispute.
With regard to II., I will answer for myself, but I think I’m giving a fair representation of Kline also.
II.1. Yes, ONLY in the sense of I.6. There is no sense in which the term ‘merit’ can be applied to obtaining God’s favor in the face of unrighteousness.
II.2. No. The legal principle in II.1 was a legal economy ONLY within the covenant of grace, and not a separate covenant from it.
II.3. No.
II.4. No. The legal economy could be broken, but that legal economy was always and only national and typological. The individual justified in Moses’ time was justified under the same principle and in the same way that individuals are justified now, even in the face of disobedience. E.g.: David.
II.5. Only in the sense of I.6.
II.6. Only in the sense of I.6.
II.7. Only in the sense of I.6.
II.8. This is an interesting question, and I’m still processing it. Certainly it is the case that there are temporal blessings and disciplines in the NT. Certainly it is also the case that there is not a land promise in the NT. Certainly further it is also the case that discipline of individual believers in the NT does not aim at destruction but restoration, which is different in kind from the punishments under the OT civil law.
It is in fact the civil law that is the greatest sticking point for “continuity”, while Rev 2-3 and 1 Cor 11 are its best arguments (Acts 5 is not, given that A&S’s deaths occur during the ‘signs and wonders’ phase of apostolic ministry).
So mark me as “don’t know.”
II.9. Depends on II.8. Either “Yes” or “No, but greatly attenuated in the New”
II.10. Yes. It’s a matter of merit pactum: If you set obedience as the ground, then obedience is the ground.
II.11. Holiness as in justification or holiness as in sanctification? Yes to the first, no to the second.
II. B. 1 (can we flatten these to II.12 and 13?). That’s what “legal economy” is all about.
II. B. 2 No, but moot, since a separate covenant is off the table.
LikeLike
jeff, thanks for getting to the practical. It’s not “acting as if there is a conspiracy” to ask why certain controversies are happening and why they are important.
Those who stress the history of salvation in in the name of opposition to any order of application are very dogmatic about the order of application. Why is this so important to them? Do they know what they are doing? I say yes.
Of course we could check up on which “union” guys deny “the covenant of works” and which do not. But Jeff, I think your question is more practical. When we get to talking about the negative sanctions of disobedience, then it will not be long before we arrive at the “not yet aspect of justification”. (Even if Rick Phillips is still in denial about that.)
Rick P gives the caricature (without attaching it to a specific real person)—–Christ-centered preaching” has amounted in some circles to teaching only the doctrine of justification, regardless of the actual content of a Bible passage. No matter what commands, demands, or obligations are set forth in the text, the preacher’s duty is to inform his hearers that it is Jesus alone who performs good works, since justification is through faith alone.
Rick P— Justification does not flow directly from justification. Rather, justification and sanctification are dual graces both of which flow from union with Christ in faith…. Each of these graces, including righteousness and sanctification, is located in Christ, rather than in one another.
mcmark—“Faith In the person of Christ and not in His work or his benefits” sounds pious, but how does one get “joined to the person”? If faith joins us to the personal presence, does that mean that faith is not a benefit but a condition?
Are the two graces of justification and sanctification “located in” faith”? Is “faith” the same as the indwelling presence of the person of Christ, or is faith the active condition for having this presence?
Is “sanctification” to be defined as being “more obedient” (than I used to be)? Is the blessing of being “more obedient” (than other people) located in Christ, or is that blessing located in faith? Is Christ and our experience of faith in Christ one and the same reality?
LikeLike
Jeff,
So I would add another question to your list: #14: Whether God’s discipline of individuals under the New Covenant is of the same kind or different kind as the punishment of individuals under the sanctions of the Law?
Thanks for this, I think it’s a good case study, and I agree that it could be added to the list. I would relate it to several other items on the list and I would say that the answer is “different kind” and I would put it safely up on top with the other items that are not in dispute.
However, a crucial question I think is how to explain the nature of the difference in kind. Is it a matter of a substantial difference arising from a works principle in the former administration but not in the latter? No. Rather it’s a matter of an accidental difference arising from the typology of the former economy (which prefigured fully realized eschatology, see I.5, 6) giving way to substance (albeit semi-realized) in the latter.
So there is continuity and discontinuity. There is continuity in terms of II.8 and II.11, and there is discontinuity in terms of I.6 and I.7.
I hope this helps a little. I had a longer and more elaborate answer prepared, but in view of Mark Jones’ latest offering at Ref21, I’m feeling rather convicted, and perhaps even targeted (though I am neither young nor a new Christian), so I guess maybe I’ve said too much already….
LikeLike
Perhaps we can leave off for a season, then?
LikeLike
Perhaps. Thanks though, I’ve found this helpful, even if I did get a bit carried away….
LikeLike
Good. I also.
LikeLike
As long as you have one “the covenant of grace, two administrations” and also have a “works-principle for us” in the Mosaic administration of that “the covenant of grace” , there is going to be a “works principle for us” in “the covenant of grace”.
The works-principle of any “covenant of grace” has got to be Christ’s satisfaction of that works-principle and NOT ours. The righteousness by which grace reigns in the last verse of Romans 5 is the righteousness earned by the second Adam described earlier in that chapter, NOT the righteousness which is our transformation. There is no “works principle for us” by which we earn extra or keep it real.
LikeLike
I guess I couldn’t stay away for long …. A few more thoughts….
Now you say that repubs have to be talking about two separate covenants, since they hold that the typological republication operates on a different condition from the CoG (“do this and live” rather than “believe and be saved”). Yet you yourself recognize that Turretin’s view has a legal economy that operates on a different condition from the CoG, and yet is an administration of the CoG and not the substance of it.
I think that a problem with what you say here is that there is really no such thing as a “typological republication of the CoW,” because the legal and the typological operate in two distinct spheres, and republication is simply a repetition of the eternal principles of justice. G. Vos’s BT has a very helpful discussion of this imo on p. 126ff, in which he contrasts “the legal sphere of merit” (i.e., the sphere of the CoW) with “the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression” (i.e., the sphere of the OT administration of the CoG). The republication of the moral law, or matter of the CoW (or Turretin’s external economy), is legal, not typological. It simply says “Do this and live,” promises eternal life upon the doing and threatens eternal condemnation upon the not doing.
In the typological sphere however, what we see (in keeping with I.5 and I.6 above) is that Israel’s exile prefigures the final judgment of the wicked and their everlasting exclusion from the heavenly kingdom. IOW, what is published in the sphere of typology is not the CoW per se, but rather a preview of the threatened punishment (under the terms of the broken CoW) that ultimately befalls those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, not “typological republication,” but a straight-forward republication of the principles of justice together with (yet distinct from) a typological preview of judgment to come. I am trying to make what I think is an important point here w/o seeming to be nitpicking but I don’t know if I’m succeeding….
So I would add another question to your list: #14: Whether God’s discipline of individuals under the New Covenant is of the same kind or different kind as the punishment of individuals under the sanctions of the Law?
I think I didn’t read you carefully enough the first time. I took you to be referring to church discipline, as in barring from the Lord’s table, but now I see you meant God’s providential disciplining of His children through adversity, correct (in terms of Hebrews 12:6)?
If so, then I would say your formulation is too facile, as it is not simply a question of either/or. Hebrews 12:6 is merely quoting the principle that had already been laid out in Proverbs 3:11-12, so God’s discipline of His children is clearly an OT phenomenon as well as a NT one. It is an essential element of the CoG, no matter the administration.
Likewise it is difficult to draw a hard line between temporal judgments and discipline. E.g., the context of Romans 8:36 is God’s disciplining of His children, yet the apostle is quoting Psalm 44:22, which speaks of the OT temporal curse. Hmmm….
Certainly God’s chastening of His children is aimed at correction in both OT and NT. And the curse sanctions were merely typological and temporal, so they did not necessarily entail ultimate exclusion from God’s kingdom. In the worst case scenario, they led to death, but so did the judgment on the Corinthians for their profaning of the Lord’s Supper. I will ponder this further, but perhaps we could agree on the following:
1. God’s chastening (yea, even “scourging”) of His true children is an essential feature of the CoG, and this chastening is thus not limited to any one administration.
2. As an accident of the OT administration, OT saints suffered the temporal curse of exile along with the apostate nation.
3. OT saints, even when they endured the temporal curse, were never essentially under God’s wrath, but were always and only essentially freed from the curse and in a state of grace. Hence, for them, the temporal judgments were, in fact, the rod of chastening.
LikeLike
David R: I think that a problem with what you say here is that there is really no such thing as a “typological republication of the CoW,” because the legal and the typological operate in two distinct spheres, and republication is simply a repetition of the eternal principles of justice.
Actually, the “two distinct spheres” is precisely why we can speak of typological republications. If typology and legality operated in the same sphere, then “typological republication of the law” would either be redundant (if “type” and “law” were generally synonymic) or a contradiction (if “type” and “law” were generally antonymic).
But because law and type live in separate spheres, or “orthogonal spaces”, we can speak of
typological legal economies
non-typological legal economies
typological non-legal economies
non-typological non-legal economies
Now let’s come back to this:
DR: The republication of the moral law, or matter of the CoW (or Turretin’s external economy), is legal, not typological. It simply says “Do this and live,” promises eternal life upon the doing and threatens eternal condemnation upon the not doing.
Strike “(or Turretin’s external economy)” and “not typological” and you’re right on. The “external economy” is not limited to the Decalogue, but comprises moral, judicial, and ceremonial, all three.
If we look at just the moral law, then you are exactly correct: The Decalogue
* is the moral law
* works on the principle “do this and live”
* promises eternal life and threatens eternal death.
It is also typological. Why? Because the end-goal of the giving of the Decalogue was NOT so that Israel would “do this and live”, but because Jesus would “do this and obtain life.”
What did Jesus say? “You search the Scriptures, because in them you think you have life. But these are they, that testify to me.”
The law testified to, was a shadow of, Jesus to come.
That’s how types work: They have a real meaning here and now, and they have a more substantial meaning for the future antitype.
We can see this again in what you said later:
DR: In the typological sphere however, what we see (in keeping with I.5 and I.6 above) is that Israel’s exile prefigures the final judgment of the wicked and their everlasting exclusion from the heavenly kingdom. IOW, what is published in the sphere of typology is not the CoW per se, but rather a preview of the threatened punishment (under the terms of the broken CoW) that ultimately befalls those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And that’s exactly right. And Israel’s exile was according to what threatened sanction? The “do this and live” of Deut 28 – 30: A legal, typological economy.
LikeLike
But because law and type live in separate spheres, or “orthogonal spaces”, we can speak of
typological legal economies
non-typological legal economies
typological non-legal economies
non-typological non-legal economies
Be that as it may, it seems you still haven’t grasped the significance of “external” contra “internal.” The external economy is the bare command–moral law fundamental, with ceremonial and judicial appended–in distinction from the (gospel) things signified by the types and shadows veiled beneath (which things constitute the internal economy). Hence, the external economy is by definition non-typological.
LikeLike
DR: The external economy is the bare command–moral law fundamental, with ceremonial and judicial appended–in distinction from the (gospel) things signified by the types and shadows veiled beneath (which things constitute the internal economy). Hence, the external economy is by definition non-typological.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your principle here.
Are you saying that the ceremonial law was not a part of the external economy? Or that it was not typological?
Likewise, are you saying that the judicial law was not a part of the external economy, or that it was not typological?
There seems to be a logical jump from “external was bare command; internal was gospel” to “and therefore the external was not typological.” What reasoning connects those dots?
LikeLike
What I am trying to say is that the external economy was purely an administration of law (moral, ceremonial, judicial) and as such, was communicated via plain verbal instruction (w/o recourse to typology). So while it is true of course that the ceremonial law contained types and ordinances prefiguring Christ and His benefits (and the theocracy itself was also typical), the things signified by the types did not belong to the external economy, but rather to the internal (by which the covenant of grace was administered). In terms of the external economy, their only significance was as part of the yoke comprised in the legal stipulation. So if you say that “X is a type of Christ,” you are necessarily speaking in terms of the internal economy, not the external. Capiche?
LikeLike
The initial post in this now-abandoned wreck of a thread made mention of “a certain anomaly in contemporary Reformed circles regarding a certain Mr. Murray,” namely that many of those who follow his covenant theology oppose his views on song in worship. Well, that post and the ensuing discussion got me thinking (perhaps I need my own blog) about another anomaly in contemporary Reformed circles regarding a certain Dr. Vos, namely, that so many who profess to follow his covenant theology oppose his views on the nature of conditionality in the Mosaic covenant. Why this should be is a question for another day, but it is instructive to note a crucial area of disagreement between these two biblical theologians, and thereby to ascertain which side Vos would have taken in the present debate. So without further ado….
Before getting to the disagreement, it might be helpful to note a couple of areas of concord. Vos and Kline apparently agreed, first of all, that Israel’s inheritance of the land was by grace alone, but that retention of the land inheritance was conditioned on Israel’s obedience. Secondly, they agreed that, in spite of the Israelite kingdom’s establishment in pre-eschatological redemptive-history (i.e., prior to Christ’s resurrection), in its theocratic form it typified fully-realized eschatology (i.e., post-second advent realities). Finally, they agreed that this latter fact accounted for the typological necessity that Canaanites and apostates, because they typified the reprobate, had to be purged from the typological inheritance by means of severe temporal penalties.
As to the above-mentioned disagreement, what it amounts to is that they apparently differed over a distinction that was crucial for Vos (but seemingly disregarded by Kline), namely, the distinction between what Vos referred to as the “legal sphere” and the “symbolico-typical sphere.” For Vos, the former is to be identified exclusively with the covenant of works, whereas the latter is to be identified exclusively with the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace (as to its typological signification). The important point to note is that each of these spheres possesses its own distinctive principle of covenant conditionality: In the former, the principle is that of “merit”; whereas in the latter, it is that of “appropriateness of expression.” The latter principle, Vos stresses, “is of a totally different kind” than the former. In view of their apparent disagreement over whether or not to distinguish here, their conclusions regarding the nature of Mosaic covenant conditionality were radically different. For Kline, Israel’s retention of the land was governed by a works principle. However, for Vos, this was expressly not the case, and to think otherwise would place one squarely in the company of the Pharisees and Judaizers.
The above observations are verifiable in the following brief excerpt from a section of Vos’s Biblical Theology, and given this evidence, I don’t think it is difficult to determine where the chips would fall if Vos were permitted to arbitrate this intra-Vossian debate. (The entire citation is important, but I’ve emboldened what I considered the main point for our purposes.)
LikeLike