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 
Thx for more info about strict merit. The point about proportionality is also interesting; i have seen anti-Klineans argue that meritorious-COW doesn’t make sense because the reward is not proportionate to the obedience. I say so what, God set up the rules, and the fact that God held forth reward X for obedience Y means (declares, defines) the “worth” of the obedience. Which sounds like another application of “pactum merit”. I wish I had that term in my vocab 5 years ago.
Wrt probation vs Moses; my point is mostly that “pactum merit” seems similar to Vos’ use of “arbitrary” to describe the probation command. And it makes sense to me to call Israel’s land situation one of pactum merit, and pactum merit defacto equivalent to a COW. I don’t know if it’s an “assumption” as much as a use of words. God kicked Israel out of the land because… If we agree God didn’t kick Israel out for no reason at all, then “because” fits there, and whatever that because leads to implies a covenant of works; an if-then that God set up, and Israel triggered the “if”, thus God enacted the “then”.
Thx for the ref into later Vos; I don’t know if I’ll make time to look it up, I’m really enjoying the snail’s pace of Reformed Forum’s “Vos Group” study. Probably get to p 126 by mid 2016.
As for Lusk, if you want, here is a critique which starts off with a link to the original, so twofer.
LikeLike
Alex, can’t speak for Mark, but that God has an ineffectual love for the Reprobate is not Amyrauldian?
LikeLike
From the Van Tillian thread:
David R.,
Hello again. Help me with understanding something because I’m a little confused by this statement. You wrote above: The distinction between the Creator and creature is such that the creature can’t merit anything from God unless God first promises him something. This does not seem so debatable to me.
You have said elsewhere that the problem with TLNF and Kline is that they claim Israel can ‘merit’ temporal blessings. At least that’s what I understand you to be saying. Why wouldn’t the qualification for the creature’s merit before God likewise apply to the land promises that God made to the nation of Israel? Theirs isn’t a merit intrinsically worth the land tenure, but a merit defined by the land promise held out by God base upon his conditional covenant arrangement with corporate Israel. Isn’t this then a merit defined by the promise that God gave the nation to attain to through obedience to the Mosaic covenant?
thanks…
LikeLike
B, most of those championing Murray in the OPC either don’t know they are not following Murray on psalms or don’t want to know.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s what I’m saying too, using this new vocab David R gave me “not strict merit, but pactum merit”
LikeLike
David R—The reason for their concern (ironically enough) is that they think the Klinean language about merit in the old covenant blurs the historic Reformed distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (i.e., the distinction between law and gospel, which in spite of some of the rhetoric is agreed on by all parties) rather than clarifying it.
mcmark—as usual, David, I find your points illuminating. But who is the “they”?. While Gaffin may be politically astute enough not to deny “covenant of works” in the way that Norman Shepherd and John Murray did, does the ‘they” against Kline affirm either “the covenant of works” or the law-gospel antithesis? I am not thinking only of Gaffin teaching that the law gospel divide disappears after we become Christians. I am asking if Mark Jones agrees with the idea of a “covenant of works”. I am not asking about those who self-identify as “federal visionists” but those –like Jones–who insist that sanctification is given to us “on conditions” because justification was given to Christ “on conditions”. If the conditional language avoids “merit”, what is left of the distinction between law and gospel?
In Antinomianism, P and R, 2013, Jones keeps hinting that those who disagree with him have not read the historical documents in question. The most irritating claim he makes is that he’s correct because of a better Christology. p 21—”If Christ is our mediator, our union with him means not only that we must be holy (i.e., necessity), but also that we will be able to be like him (i.e., motive)…”
.Jones, p 24–”There was a perfect synergy involved in Jesus’ human obedience and the Holy Spirit’s influence…Following this pattern, although man is completely passive at the moment of regeneration, he cooperates with God in sanctification.”
Denying the idea of a “covenant of works” in which Christ obeyed law to earn merits, Jones also denies the idea of substitution so that our works are not necessary for the not yet aspect of justification. Like the Galatian false teachers, Jones equates “living by faith’ with obeying the law, and argues along with Gaffin and Shepherd that our living by faith means our obeying the law.
Instead of talking about the merits of Christ, Jones speaks of Christ’s living by faith, which was obeying the law, to get to the idea of our also living by faith, which then comes to mean our obeying the law.
On p 24, Jones argues from the fact that Christ “was not left to His own abilities but was enabled by the Spirit” to not only question the language of “covenant of works” but to say that we Christians are enabled by the Spirit “to cooperate with God in sanctification. Except for the emphasis on sanctification instead of justification, the conclusion is no different from that of NT Wright—don’t be so Christocentric, because the work of the Spirit in us is also Christ’s work for our final justification.
LikeLike
RubeRad,
I think you’re taking the idea of an arbitrary probation command and running with it to places where it shouldn’t go. The reason why it had to be arbitrary is that it was in addition to the moral/natural law already written in Adam’s heart by nature. But now that he had this new command, he was still obligated to render perfect obedience. How can anything analogous be imported into the post-fall situation? Which of the laws that God gave to Israel are arbitrary?
LikeLike
David R., well, scholastic categories aren’t very
Vossian— I mean, Keruxian.Can we get a little intellectual honesty here? None of the contestants studied with Witsius or Owen.
LikeLike
Rube, as if Christ’s obedience is proportionate to the salvation of all the elect?
LikeLike
My son Kevin got marred this past Saturday, and I am just now able to try to catch up with this thread….
i am told —The minister preaching the sermon doesn’t know who the elect and the reprobate are
mark–of course, and neither do the rest of us servants, but what does that have to do with an “offer” that tells everybody that God loves them and desires to save them? Not one thing! Not knowing who is elect are is no excuse for not telling the good news about election, and especially the good news that all for whom Christ died are elect and that all the elect will be saved. This is indeed God-honoring news, and can and should be taught to everybody, and everybody commanded to believe this gospel.
The idea that Christ died for other people besides the elect is not only not true but it’s a falsehood that replaces the truth of the gospel. I won’t repeat the anathemas of Dordt here, but simply comment that knowing about election is not a secret not-revealed thing and is not to be equated with identifying the elect. As many as believe the gospel is not the condition of election but the result of election.
You can have a “covenant” in which you include everybody or everybody who is one-generation-removed related to others in that “covenant”, but there is no assurance of an individual person being elect apart from the resulting faith in the gospel. If you think you have to give the water to somebody before you can give them the gospel, then go ahead and give the water to everybody but the water gives no assurance to anybody of future faith or past election.
I am also told: So the minister can offer the salvation of the gospel freely- without respect to person, status, morality &c.- and leave it to God to work out who will be effectually called and who won’t. And, also, it’s not the people in the street who are being offered the gospel but those in the church, under the preaching.
mark: I do not object to the word “offer” if it means the promise of the gospel, but since the Marrow (and since John Murray) the word “offer” has come to be associated with the false notion that God loves everybody and that God desires to save the non-elect. If you tell people something false about God (that God wants to save everybody), then you have not “left it to God” but have instead perverted the truth of the gospel.
I really wish that you had taken the time to at least read the opc minority report on the “offer”. As for the comment above, it seems not to be able to make up its mind–On the hand, the gospel command is for everybody and I agree. But then on the other hand, the comment above says–no worries, it’s only in the church and in preaching. So what–if we agree that the sincere call to obey the gospel is to be proclaimed to everybody, who cares if the listeners have been watered or if they are “in the covenant” or even “in church”?
Bob –while the ProtRefChurches may deny the confessional version of the free offer at the same time they deny John Murray’s hijack of it, I don’t know that McM is doing that or even denying the public promiscuous preaching of the gospel in the park or on the sidewalk outside of a church.
mark: The Protestant Reformed accept all three confessions, and I do not see how what they say denies the universal duty of all sinners to believe the gospel. Certainly I don’t think the gospel must only be preached “in church” and I don’t see how the PRC thinks that either. Mostly I see a lot of false labeling and slander which gets repeated by one uninformed person after another. Getting the content of the supralapsarian/ infralapsarian debate wrong can be a relatively “minor” problem, but it’s a major problem when “offer” gets used to promote the Amyraldian notion that Christ died to make a proposal of love to every sinner. That idea–to say the least—is something less than the love of God which gives the Son as propitiation for all the sins of all the elect.
LikeLike
mcMark, congratulations. I assume you approve of the bride. (Do Anabaptists marry?)
LikeLike
it’s not a matter of “proportionate” or even “infinite”. Christ’s death is about Christ bearing away by propitiatory death the specific sins of the elect. Christ was “made sin” by God’s imputation
Christ’s death saves not only because of God’s sovereign plan but also because of God’s justice.
This justice is now often caricatured. As in, if I had committed one more or less sin, and if there had been one or less elect person, then Christ would have suffered more or less. The truth is that Christ died only one death, and it not a certain amount of suffering but that one (and only one) death which shall take away all the sins of the elect
But we must be careful in dismissing a “commercial view” of the propitiation, not only because Christ can and does do things by measure (healing some but not others) but because the Bible does talk about being bought by blood so that we belong to Christ. One of the better discussion on this topic this by Tom Nettles in By His Grace and For His glory.
Nettles first quotes the opposite view, that of Andrew Fuller: “We could say that a certain number of Christ’s acts of obedience becomes ours as that certain number of sins becomes his. In the former case his one undivided obedience affords a ground of justification to any number of believers; in the latter, his one atonement is sufficient for the pardon of any number of sins or sinners.
Nettles explains that Fuller “misconceives the biblical relation of imputation. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness should not be considered as analogous to God’s imputation of the sin of the elect to Christ but rather to the imputation of Adam’s sin”.
Nettles— one: it’s tantamount to identifying the doctrine of effectual calling with atonement. What the Amyraldian really means by definite atonement is that the difference is not in the atonement but in the Spirit’s work of calling….A second error is subtle in nature and involves a shift in the understanding of the sacrificial death. Although the concepts of reconciliation and propitiation are defined as activities accomplished in the Father’s setting forth God the Son–when the “sufficiency to make an offer” view arises, the emphasis shifts from the Son’s passive obedience to what Christ continues to actively accomplish by His Spirit and His infinite divine nature.”
Abraham Booth, Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Character, 3:60
“While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanual’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to Him, we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which He did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom He did not represent. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption by our adorable Jesus…
Dagg (Manual of Theology,330): “Some have maintained that, if the atonement of Christ is not general, no sinner can be under obligation to believe in Christ, until he is assured that he is one of the elect. This implies that no sinner is bound to believe what God says, unless he knows that God designs to save him…
LikeLike
Hey Jack,
The difference is pre-fall versus post-fall. Suppose Adam pre-fall, able to render perfect obedience. Is it meritorious if he does so? No, because this is what he owes. Yet God puts Himself in man’s debt, as it were. But in order to merit the blessing, Adam needs to render perfect obedience. Now, fast forward to after the fall. Man, now sinful and deserving of condemnation, still owes perfect obedience, though he has forfeit the possibility of ever rendering it. What exactly are you proposing, that God lowers the standard in the Mosaic covenant to something that sinful Israel can achieve? If so, then no thanks, I’ll stick with Reformed theology. But if you are simply saying that the condition of the Mosaic covenant is perfect obedience, then I may be able to agree, though of course this wouldn’t have to be “defined by the land promise” since it was already given in the covenant of works.
LikeLike
Are there any anabaptists left? Anabaptists rejected Roman water and human killing. Now, the conservative Mennonites wave the flag for George Bush (but not Obama) along with their Lutheran and Reformed neighbors, and the liberal Mennonites welcome Romanists to come help them turn their table into “the sacrament”.
As far as I know, my 28 year old son has of yet not been watered by anybody. Surely that’s an environmental result of being raised by some kind of “anabaptist” dad. I would tell you that he has heard a thing or two about Christ’s romance (even to redemption by His death) with His elect. Thank you and I would ask for your prayers for him and his new bride. And for all those, not only in my own family, who have not yet obeyed the gospel.
LikeLike
Even though merit is not a biblical word, and nobody can make us say merit, I would still say “our permanent redemption obtained by Christ’s finished WORK”. All the blessings of our salvation are not only by grace but also by justice. Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift by as his due. The salvation of the elect is what God’s justice owes to Christ. It is not grace to Christ that the Triune God gives Christ the salvation of His people.
This does not mean we can say without qualification that the elect are entitled to salvation. Salvation is by grace to the elect. But this salvation is by justice, not only to the Son, but also because of the holy character of the Triune God. We need to avoid a nominalism in which God is only sovereign and not to be glorified for His justice, as to His character and acts. God is both just and justifier of the ungodly.
The priestly death of Jesus Christ was not merely one way (among many) God could have saved the elect. (See Abraham Booth’s Justice Essential to the Divine Character). Socinians say that we deny God’s sovereignty to have the option of forgiving apart from Christ’s death’s satisfying justice. But God cannot lie. And God cannot save sinners apart from the death of Son.
After Christ has died, God cannot in justice not save all those for whom Christ died. This is not about the infinity of Christ’s person (both divine and human) This is about Christ our surety having obtained something by a WORK. And this is what the scholastic “merits” is getting to. Christ’s death gets us off from God’s wrath, but also that Christ has justly earned all future blessings for the elect (access, adoption, resurrection).
The “federal visionists” are for the most part in fact opposed to the federal merits of Christ. And those who claim to be most jealous for the gracious character of the Mosaic covenant in fact tend to confuse the justice and grace categories for the sake of their mono-covenantalism.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Can we get a little intellectual honesty here? None of the contestants studied with Witsius or Owen.
But some of them are working at catching up. (Funny that this is a debate between “Vossians,” but none of them ever appeals to Vos.)
LikeLike
Mark, the PRC’s accept the WS? Covenant of works for one? Best of my knowledge they are very dicey about “offer”. Yeah, the WS talk about it “but”.
In 1953 DeWulf was suspended for saying “God promises everyone of you that if you believe you will be saved” (as well as “Our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter the kingdom”).
Dunno. Acts 16:31 sounds like a promise to me.
“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
True, thankfully God does more than just offer salvation, because then none of us would have believed, but regardless. God’s free offer to save sinners on account of the price Christ paid on the cross is what it is.
LikeLike
David, which authors are you reading? As I say, honesty. You really think Owen and Witsius have more influence than Vos or Van Til?
LikeLike
David, could you be conflating the promise as to individual election (requires a perfect righteousness by grace) and the national election of Israel based on the works principle. One has to do with one’s standing before the law as to salvation base on grace through faith in Christ. The other has to do with tenure in the land through covenant keeping (works principle).
Kline:
“What he [Paul] recognizes is that the promise has to do with individual election, and the works principal has to do with Israel’s national election. So they’re not dealing with the same thing. If the works were dealing with the same thing as the promise than the works would annul the promise. But the works principle is not dealing with individual election, it’s dealing with the corporate thing. Corporate Israel was involved in the covenant arrangement involving the typological kingdom, which could be and was broken. But the Abrahamic promises of salvation in Christ that was by grace and that could not be broken.”
One requires the perfect obedience/ merit of Christ before the Law for the individual. The other requires an obedience or merit as defined by the Lord of the covenant for the nation. One has to do with eternal standing before God. The other has to do with the temporal blessing of dwelling in the land of Canaan.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, probably not but perhaps they should. I agree with your linked post, but I think this particular debate actually is more about the system of doctrine than it is about Murray vs. Kline (and Vos doesn’t figure in either).
LikeLike
Kline:
“It is precisely in connection with that then that we can then suggest that this second layer up here on top of the ground foundational grace level. Here is this typological kingdom, and the national election of Israel to be distinguished from the individual election of people to heaven. The national election of Israel is that they may enjoy this typological kingdom and then the third ingredient that goes along with the national election and the typological kingdom is the principle of works. So it is by works then that the corporate Israel, the national election, will be able to enjoy, and to have tenure within that land. So it was like Adam under his covenant of works that’s sort of is recapitulated here in the experience of Israel. They too are in their paradise land, but to stay there, they, like Adam, if he’s going to stay in his paradise land, has to fulfill his Covenant of Works. Israel if they’re going to stay in their paradise land must fulfill a works arrangement too. That’s our contention.”
LikeLike
Jack,
David, could you be conflating the promise as to individual election (requires a perfect righteousness by grace) and the national election of Israel based on the works principle.
I don’t believe that there is one covenant for the elect and another for Israel, so I don’t think I’m conflating things. I think that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, which means that what was given to Israel was essentially the covenant of grace (though it was given to them in a form that presented the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works). And by the way, “national election of Israel based on the works principle” is kind of hard to square with Deuteronomy 7:6-8 isn’t it?
One requires the perfect obedience/ merit of Christ before the Law for the individual. The other requires an obedience or merit as defined by the Lord of the covenant for the nation. One has to do with eternal standing before God. The other has to do with the temporal blessing of dwelling in the land of Canaan.
Is it fair to say that you distinguish the Mosaic covenant from the covenant of grace (as a specifically distinct covenant)? If so, can you please clarify what you mean by “an obedience or merit as defined by the Lord of the covenant for the nation”? Is this a measure of obedience that sinners are able to attain to? Or is it perfect obedience (as in the covenant of works) held out to them hypothetically?
LikeLike
David, I think (as do many) that the MC was a mixed covenant containing the eternal covenant of grace for the elect individual who trusted in the promise and a temporal covenant of land tenure for the nation based on a works principle. Two distinct levels in the MC. The biblical record seems to bear this out.
Notice that the WCF when talking about the administration of the covenant of grace under the Law, doesn’t mention the Law but rather “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…” The covenant of grace wasn’t administered by the Law. The Law is not of Faith. What purpose the law as to Israel as a corporate nation? Certainly for elect Israelites it drove them to Christ. But for a nation there is no category of salvation. Israel wasn’t the OT invisible church. Salvation relates to individuals. Can God not have a temporal purpose for Israel apart from salvation under the MC requiring obedience for land tenure and which exacts exile for covenant breaking?
LikeLike
Jack,
David, I think (as do many) that the MC was a mixed covenant containing the eternal covenant of grace for the elect individual who trusted in the promise and a temporal covenant of land tenure for the nation based on a works principle. Two distinct levels in the MC. The biblical record seems to bear this out..
This is still not clear to me. It appears that you are actually talking about two different covenants. Covenants are defined in terms of their stipulations and sanctions. What were the stipulations and sanctions of the Mosaic covenant, in your view? Were they different than those of the covenant of grace? (If so, you’ve got two covenants.)
Notice that the WCF when talking about the administration of the covenant of grace under the Law, doesn’t mention the Law but rather “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…” The covenant of grace wasn’t administered by the Law. The Law is not of Faith.
I agree with you that the covenant of grace during the Mosaic period was not administered by the law (assuming you mean the moral law). The law was administered by the law. I also agree that the covenant of grace was administered by the “types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come …”
What purpose the law as to Israel as a corporate nation? Certainly for elect Israelites it drove them to Christ. But for a nation there is no category of salvation. Israel wasn’t the OT invisible church. Salvation relates to individuals. Can God not have a temporal purpose for Israel apart from salvation under the MC requiring obedience for land tenure and which exacts exile for covenant breaking?
Again, it appears you are speaking of two separate covenants, one for individuals and one for the nation. But I see (as do many) in Scripture only one covenant of grace, which during the Mosaic period was administered legally.
LikeLike
David, I’m no theologian but my quick back of the envelope explanation… The covenant of grace ran through the MC though not inaugurated by the MC. The promise existed for 430 years prior and yet continued (was not annulled by the MC law as per Galatians which in of itself is interesting) through the post Ex. 20 era. So what was the MC? – something different – regarding purpose it was in harmony with the CoG as to individuals marked for salvation and as a nation under a conditional covenant in order to remain a people separated under God that the Christ might be identified when he appeared. It’s a hybrid. Can the CoG be broken? No, because it is Christ who secures it through his obedience and death. Yet the MC was broken by Israel as a nation. And as the writer to the Hebrews says, it was set aside for something better. The MC as a national covenant (which ended) plays a central role both through a nation in which the seed, Christ, is preserved through a separated recognizable people under the law conditions and through the CoG promises, types, and sacrifices in the CoG administered to the individual Israeli elect. But itself isn’t the CoG. It is something other (an administration under the Law covenant) and yet the CoG continues in and through it. And more than a few reformed theologians have understood it as such.
LikeLike
David R.
Posted July 21, 2014 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
Jack,
David, could you be conflating the promise as to individual election (requires a perfect righteousness by grace) and the national election of Israel based on the works principle.
—I don’t believe that there is one covenant for the elect and another for Israel, so I don’t think I’m conflating things. I think that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, which means that what was given to Israel was essentially the covenant of grace (though it was given to them in a form that presented the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works). And by the way, “national election of Israel based on the works principle” is kind of hard to square with Deuteronomy 7:6-8 isn’t it?
One requires the perfect obedience/ merit of Christ before the Law for the individual. The other requires an obedience or merit as defined by the Lord of the covenant for the nation. One has to do with eternal standing before God. The other has to do with the temporal blessing of dwelling in the land of Canaan.
Is it fair to say that you distinguish the Mosaic covenant from the covenant of grace (as a specifically distinct covenant)? If so, can you please clarify what you mean by “an obedience or merit as defined by the Lord of the covenant for the nation”? Is this a measure of obedience that sinners are able to attain to? Or is it perfect obedience (as in the covenant of works) held out to them hypothetically?
Dude. Now that’s some serious theological society theologinizationizing. Plus it’ll help keep the blog author from playing in traffic, to the benefit of both theological pedestrians and motorists.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2014 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
David, which authors are you reading? As I say, honesty. You really think Owen and Witsius have more influence than Vos or Van Til?
As Darryl always says, honesty. But what “influence” means I do not know. That [God’s?] truth is democratized–up for a vote, and since for the greater mass of men peer pressure is the rule, a question of influence–is exactly why some of us ask
Whose Calvinism is it anyway? Owen’s, Van Til’s? The PCUSA’s? The least of us sit back and mark our scorecards, as best we can since there is no Official Scorer.
LikeLike
David Gordon—John Murray’s resistance to describing the Adamic administration in covenantal terms was more than lexical; it was more than the simple matter that the term “covenant” was not used to describe the Edenic administration.
Click to access abraham_and_sinai_contraste.pdf
Gordon: If Murray’s definition of “covenant” as a “sovereign administration of grace and promise” is permitted to stand, it would be impossible to describe the Adamic administration properly, since Adam’s mortality is conditional. Murray therefore preferred to speak of it as the “Adamic administration.” Yet even here, his construal of the matter displayed the same implicit monocovenantalism revealed in his discussion of the Sinai covenant.
Gordon: Once the term “covenant” is defined in such a manner as to include grace and promise as part of the definition, then the historic, two-covenant structure of covenant theology is no longer possible; and, as Murray desired, it would be necessary to construct a “re-casting” of the covenant theology, one that removes from any covenant any true sense of conditionality on the part of the human party thereto. Once this conditionality is removed, faith inevitably blends with works, since each is merely the human response to grace.
Gordon–And so, Murray’s disciples inevitably move in a monocovenantal direction; all covenants become essentially the same: Norman Shephard cannot easily distinguish Abrahamic faith from Sinaitic works; Greg Bahnsen could not distinguish Israel’s laws from the laws of non-theocratic nations;… the so-called Federal Vision cannot easily distinguish the visible (the “outward Jew” of Romans 2) from the invisible (the “inward Jew” of Romans 2) church. Though John Murray himself committed none of these errors, his monocovenantal tendency would inevitably have the effects it has had in each of these areas.
Gordon—Murray (and his followers) implicitly believe that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer . I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it. His pledge to be Israel’s God, via the terms of the Sinai administration, committed Him to curse Israel for disobedience just as much as to bless her for obedience. In being Israel’s “God,” He sustained the relation of covenant Suzerain to her; He did not bless-or-curse any other nation for its covenant fidelity or infidelity. In this sense, He was not the God of other nations as He was the God of Israel.
Gordon– Murray’s (unargued and unarguable) assumption that “I shall be their God” implies gracious redemption, election, or union with Christ, is entirely unmerited (should I say “unwarranted?”) by the biblical evidence. The first generation of those to whom the Sinai covenant was given died in the wilderness, in a situation that they perceived as being worse than their situation in Egypt. Why? Because Yahweh was not their God? No; because Yahweh was their God (i.e. Covenant Lord); and because, as such, He was committed to imposing the sanctions of the Sinai covenant upon them. I suppose one could strain language here, and say that it was “gracious” of Yahweh to impose curse-sanctions upon the Israelites (but not upon the nations); but I certainly would take no comfort in God’s “grace,” if it entailed such.
LikeLike
Jack,
Thanks. You began this conversation by asking me to clear up your confusion as to how it is that innocent Adam could merit life according to the terms of the covenant of works but sinful Israel could not, by the same token, merit life according to the terms of the MC. I don’t think I’ve succeeded but one thing that will help me know for sure is if you answer my question as to your view of the nature of Israel’s meritorious obedience (i.e., perfect or tainted with sin). If you say “perfect” (i.e., as was demanded in the covenant of works), then it’s true, the view you would be propounding is not unknown in covenant theology. I think all parties agree that the offer of life for perfect obedience still stands (though rendered hypothetical by the fall). But if you think the standard was lowered so that Israel could actually attain to it (not to mention Noah, Abraham and David), then in spite of your claim, there is little (if any) precedent for it until Kline. (Go back and look at Bolton’s taxonomy and you won’t fnd it.) And please don’t quote Hodge and Buchanan as there is no way to demonstrate they thought sinners could merit (even temporal) life by pactum. And as you know, Hodge took pride in Princeton’s eschewing of theological novelty.
LikeLike
Jack, why not just stick with Shaw?
LikeLike
David, thanks. Shaw, as are the positions un TLNF, is an acceptable view. Where do you read that this view believes that God lowered the standard of his law? Can he not have a period of time in which he doesn’t recompense Israel for their violations and then in his own time bring the curses (exile) upon the nation’s for their lack of faithfulness to the covenant (temporal blessings/curses based on temporal promises based on conditions of national covenant keeping)?
How do you explain that Israel broke the covenant and they were all exiled, believers included were exiled? In what way did they break the covenant, which covenant? The seems to be God, not “lowering” his standards but, no longer forbearing their national covenant violations.
Jer. 11: 6 And the LORD said to me, “Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem: Hear the words of this covenant and do them.
7 For I solemnly warned your fathers when I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, warning them persistently, even to this day, saying, Obey my voice.
8 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but everyone walked in the stubbornness of his evil heart. Therefore I brought upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but they did not.”
9 Again the LORD said to me, “A conspiracy exists among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
10 They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words. They have gone after other gods to serve them. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant that I made with their fathers.
11 Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing disaster upon them that they cannot escape. Though they cry to me, I will not listen to them.
LikeLike
Good point, Jack. What covenant did the exilic Hebrews break if not a republished, restated, or re-enforced covenant of works?
LikeLike
Isnt’ that what I said?
“If there is not a principle of works in operation in Moses, on what basis did God evict Israel from the land?”
Anyways, in 12 hours I’ve lost a handle on this thread, so I’ll tag out and maybe try to skim along as others vie for blog points.
LikeLike
The point has been made by others elsewhere but it bears repeating here. If the sacrifice of Christ could be typified through bulls and goats and not be the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, what’s the beef with the OT holding forth types of the active obedience of Christ?
LikeLike
Sean, I’ve heard that a lot recently and the answer is that there is absolutely no beef with the OT holding forth types of Christ’s active obedience.
LikeLike
Jack,
To clarify about Shaw, I suggested you stick with him because it is indeed a standard Reformed view. Regarding Kline, his view is that the standard of judgment is “typological legibility,” i.e., a lowered standard. I am glad to hear that you disagree (but then you are not advocating the view in TLNF).
Kline:
Estelle:
How do you explain that Israel broke the covenant and they were all exiled, believers included were exiled? In what way did they break the covenant, which covenant? The seems to be God, not “lowering” his standards but, no longer forbearing their national covenant violations.
You guys keep asking this and I keep wondering if you ever consider the fact that Reformed theologians have pretty universally settled on a different answer to your question.
Vos:
Vos again:
LikeLike
Sean,
I see no problem with the idea that Israel’s obedience typifies Christ’s (anymore than there’s a problem with Noah’s and Abraham’s obedience typifying Christ’s). However, I think we can (and should) say these things w/o also saying that they fulfilled a covenant of works.
But for more on types of Christ’s active obedience, see Vos’s BT, page 169. I think it puts an end to the recently oft-repeated claim about a lack of types of Christ’s active obedience in the sacrificial system.
LikeLike
OK, so keeping the covenant “perfectly” involves sin and sacrifice. If Israel keeps the covenant by maintaining sacrifice for their sins (a.k.a. faithfully worship God in the manner he prescribed), then they stay in the land. If they break the covenant by failing to sacrifice for their sins (a.k.a. turn to other gods) then they lose the land. (Also, if Israel just flat-out doesn’t sin, they can stay in the land). Sounds like a works principle to me. And Israel has to keep it “perfectly” in one sense that they must continue to sacrifice for their sins. But in another sense, that is not “perfect” because there are sins. The covenant is eternal because Christ is the true Israel and has perfectly, actively fulfilled all righteousness, thus securing the benefits of the covenant for all who have faith in him.
LikeLike
David, you are way better read than I am so I won’t deal directly with the quote from Vos, who I haven’t read. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say his quote represents that which Reformed theologians have pretty universally settled on. One concern is that he seems to be saying that the the MC is essentially the covenant of grace which can be and is continually being broken? That seems to be what Vos is saying. Yet Christ is the surety, the guarantor of the CoG. He alone is the one who “appeared and passed between the pieces.” He took up the CoW and fulfilled it once for all (his elect). It is unbreakable.
Also the WCF 7.5 puts it this way (with what I think is the meaning in brackets) – “This covenant [CoG] was differently administered in the time of the law [the Mosaic covenant], and in the time of the gospel [fulfilled CoG]: under the law [the Mosaic covenant], it was administered…” This would be consistent with Paul’s teaching in Galatians.
As an elect believer my sin doesn’t and can’t break the CoG anymore than King David’s. Yet Israel as a nation broke God’s covenant and paid the price that God told them that as a nation they would pay if they did so. Two levels going on. CoG on one level, CoW on the other. One as relates to the individual believer. The other as relates to the nation of Israel for typological purposes. Believers, citizens of the nation, were also exiled and certainly were not breakers of the CoG. Something else was going on than a violation of the CoG.
I don’t have any problem with the Kline or Estelle quotes. As to Kline – the performance of duties has to do with national duties bearing temporal/national rewards or punishments with typological significance, not eternal/individual blessedness. It is not about the standard of meriting eternal life as individuals. On the individual level Christ has met that high standard. No standard of God’s law is being lowered as to meriting eternal life. And I agree that Estelles point, as the quote states, is based on biblical evidence [which] is incontrovertible.
But I think we’re just going round and round, so I’ll stop here unless you have something specific you want me to address. Take care…
LikeLike
I’m curious whether we have any evidence of Vos’ assessment of Kline. Wikipedia says Vos died when MGK was just 27, so maybe there just wasn’t enough overlap.
LikeLike
Jack,
One concern is that he seems to be saying that the the MC is essentially the covenant of grace which can be and is continually being broken?
The short answer is that there is a distinction between those who are merely externally (administratively) in the covenant of grace and those who are truly united to Christ. This is true in the OT and the NT. “Not all who are of Israel are Israel.” The broken off branches can be said to have broken the covenant.
LikeLike
David, I’ll have to read Vos to get all the nuance you want to make. If this is a fight over being Vossian or not, I’m not sure I care a whole lot but certainly it’s worth knowing. I think the republication disagreement is more rooted and of greater concern, to me, as it engages formulations of Sola Fide, L/G considerations, Union reordering of the ordo, and ontological orientations of soteriology. Ever since I’ve been in reformed circles, Murray’s mono-covenantalism has been an issue. It’s not simply of matter of looking for a fight. You’re forced to weed through all the different bastard children that that move has generated. And it doesn’t look like it’s gonna go away on it’s own or that it can co-exist with what I consider faithful understanding of protestant/biblical expressions of salvation.
LikeLike
Jack,
Believers, citizens of the nation, were also exiled and certainly were not breakers of the CoG.
Indeed. And elect believers today continue in exile, do we not (1 Peter 1:1)? Daniel was no more under God’s curse than we are.
LikeLike
Sean,
I think the republication disagreement is more rooted and of greater concern, to me, as it engages formulations of Sola Fide, L/G considerations, Union reordering of the ordo, and ontological orientations of soteriology. Ever since I’ve been in reformed circles, Murray’s mono-covenantalism has been an issue.
Believe me, I understand. Fairly recently I completely agreed with you. Now I think you’ve bought into a narrative. If you can make the time, read some old stuff on covenant theology, Turretin, Roberts, Ball, etc. Take a rest from Kline, Gordon and Scott Clark.
LikeLike
Believers, citizens of the nation, were also exiled and certainly were not breakers of the CoG.
Indeed. And elect believers today continue in exile, do we not (1 Peter 1:1)? Daniel was no more under God’s curse than we are.
David, apples and oranges I would say. The Nation if Israel under the MC was exiled, including believers, due to covenant breaking. There is no exiling of the visible church under the gospel today due to covenant breaking. Daniel was under the curse of being exiled as a citizen of covenant-breaking Israel though as an individual believer not under the curse of damnation because of Christ’s covenant keeping. Two levels…
LikeLike
Jack, blessings to you and yours. Till next time (which, given past experience will be soon….)
LikeLike
David, I don’t know about thinking for me. That’s some scary territory. It could be I’ve been blinded, I doubt it, but I’m not threatened by reading others and have. I’d be interested in your take beyond merely historical constructions and how you navigate Gal. 3 or Heb 4, Rom 5, the usual suspects. Maybe you’ve recently bought into a narrative?
LikeLike
Jack (and Rube),
Before I go, I leave you with a passage from a Brakel’s A Christian’s Reasonable Service, volume 1. Even if you disagree, at least you’ll see how Reformed theologians generally deal with this question.
Before he responds, he describes what is meant by such an “external covenant,” including the following points (among others):
Here’s an objection that a Brakel deals with (essentially your objection):
LikeLike
It is probably helpful to keep the seminary wars in mind when assessing this controversy. Is it any coincidence that folks from MARS, WTS, and Northwest have something else to gain by misrepresenting WSC faculty’s teachings? Apparently, negative recruiting ain’t just for SEC football.
LikeLike
Jack (I’m still here, sigh),
David, apples and oranges I would say. The Nation if Israel under the MC was exiled, including believers, due to covenant breaking. There is no exiling of the visible church under the gospel today due to covenant breaking.
But where would the visible church be exiled to? However, see Hebrews 10:26-31.
LikeLike
“apples and oranges I would say”
And I would say as well. Hebrews makes clear that we are in exile as Abraham was in exile, which was not because of disobedience of ourselves or our forefathers (unless you go back to Adam, who broke a covenant of works).
LikeLike