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 
RubeRad,
C’mon, did you read Hebrews 10:26-31? Who is being addressed in that passage, and who is being threatened with “exile”?
LikeLike
Answer: the visible church
LikeLike
David,
Earlier you wrote “And elect believers today continue in exile, do we not (1 Peter 1:1)” then you wrote that the visible church who apostatize (Heb 10) are the ones in exile. You are not being consistent.
LikeLike
David R, I was of course talking about Heb 11. Heb 10 is not talking about being in exile right now, it is talking about potentially being exiled to hell in final judgment. And of course you know it is debatable how that passage relates to elect members of the invisible church.
LikeLike
Scott Clark over at Heidelblog has quite a number of posts highlighting the historical references/arguments as to republication in some sense of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant:
http://heidelblog.net/category/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/
LikeLike
Sean,
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?
What’s good for the goose…. Sure, it could be I’ve bought into a narrative. One thing for sure is that I’ve set aside a narrative. I decided I want to test the various narratives so I read some older Reformed theology, which is what I’ve come to find trustworthy.
Regarding those texts, I’d be happy to discuss them but you may have to help me to understand where you think traditional Reformed views (and I don’t mean Murray!) fall short. But since the standard objection from Gal 3 is pretty obvious, I’ll give it a shot.
In a nutshell, here’s how I understand the Mosaic covenant. I stole this from Turretin (you know, the guy who retained vestiges of Medieval errors in his theology….) The Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace during the time of Moses was distinctive in that it was “clothed with the form of the covenant of works.” That is to say, there really was an outer shell, as it were, the most conspicuous feature of the MC, that presented the stipulations and sanctions of the covenant of works, “Do this and you will live” (i.e., eternal life contingent upon perfect obedience). The purpose of this external legal “clothing” sheathing the covenant of grace during the Mosaic period was not to put the Israelites under a renewed covenant of works such that they should endeavor to merit life by their obedience, but rather to cause them to flee to Christ and His mediation in the covenant of grace. IOW, the “external economy” of law was subservient to the “internal economy” of types and shadows designed to reveal the gospel and covenant of grace. The substance of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of grace revealed in the types; whereas the legal covering, though the most conspicuous part of it was accidental/administrative. (Yes, in a specific sense, this entails a republication of the covenant of works.) However, the vast majority of Jews mistook the legal “clothing” for an actual covenant of works for salvation (this is standard Reformed theology, not a “misinterpretation theory” concocted by Murray), and failed to believe the gospel revealed in the types.
I think this understanding of the MC is sufficient to account for Paul’s negative assessment of the law in Galatians 3, etc. You would do better to read Turretin of course, but I’ve given it a stab…. Does this help at all?
LikeLike
Todd,
Earlier you wrote “And elect believers today continue in exile, do we not (1 Peter 1:1)” then you wrote that the visible church who apostatize (Heb 10) are the ones in exile. You are not being consistent.
Elect believers live in the hope of the heavenly inheritance. In the meantime, we live our lives in the present age “in exile,” as it were. OTOH, visible church members who apostatize (Heb 10) are threatened with permanent exile from the heavenly inheritance. Where is the inconsistency?
LikeLike
RubeRad,
And of course you know it is debatable how that passage relates to elect members of the invisible church.
But I was not relating it to elect members of the invisible church. I was relating it to apostatizing members of the visible church (as does the writer to the Hebrews). They are the only ones who face the threat of permanent exile from the kingdom of God (both in the OT and the NT).
LikeLike
David,
You were comparing the OT exile of Daniel with exile in the NT, and suggested that Daniel’s exile was not a penalty of the covenant of works between God and Israel but common for believers under grace in both testaments, but then gave opposing comparisons between exile then and now. So which is the equivalent of Daniel’s exile, the elect’s or apostate’s, and how are believers in the NC under the same covenant as Deut. 28:15?
LikeLike
Todd,
How would you compare Daniel’s exile with that of believers now? One is penal and the other isn’t? Could be, I’ll have to ponder that some more….
So which is the equivalent of Daniel’s exile, the elect’s or apostate’s, and how are believers in the NC under the same covenant as Deut. 28:15?
I would say Daniel’s exile (along with the rest of the nation) is a type of the apostates’ future exile. Regarding Deuteronomy 28, I understand the sanctions to typify eternal sanctions. I gave a nutshell version of my understanding of the Mosaic covenant to Sean (a few comments up) so perhaps that will help too. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
LikeLike
David,
I’m not clear what your view is, even with the Turretin quote. If the law is of grace, why the threat for not obeying all of it?
LikeLike
The beauty of covenantal threats….sounds like Kline in By Oath Consigned. It also sounds like John Piper in Future Grace. The assumption is that “the covenant” is conditional, and also that “covenant” is not governed by the doctrine of election. Are they gospel threats or law threats, or is there no difference between gospel and law? And is that difference only the difference between the invisible and the visible?
The Fatal Flaw, by Jeffrey Johnson, Free Grace Press, 2010— “The covenant of works that Christ was obligated to fulfill could not have been the covenant of creation. Why? Because this covenant had already been broken and its death penalty issued upon Adam’s fallen race. Thus Christ had to be born outside the broken covenant of creation…He could not be born under the federal headship of Adam. Wisius explains, ‘That the surety was not from Adam’s covenant, not born under the law of nature, and consequently not born under the imputation of Adam’s sin.’
Johnson continues: “The law justifies but before the law men could not merit salvation by works, because there was no covenant….If all this is true, then the Mosaic covenant had to be a covenant of works; If not, there would be no covenant to reward the man Christ Jesus for His obedience.”
mcmark—I do not agree with Johnson, on several levels. But I thought it worth reporting.
LikeLike
Michael Corleone – Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!
David: But I was not relating it to elect members of the invisible church. I was relating it to apostatizing members of the visible church (as does the writer to the Hebrews). They are the only ones who face the threat of permanent exile from the kingdom of God (both in the OT and the NT).
Yes, as was the case with only the professing yet apostatizing members of the theocracy of Israel concerning eternal salvation or damnation. The same in both testaments. The difference lies in the fact that it is only under the Mosaic covenant that the entire church (of Israel) is given temporal punishment, i.e. exiled out of the land that they had been given through the Abrahamic promise and were to keep according to the MC conditions. But even the elect Israelites suffered this exile. There is no similar conditional NT visible church covenant keeping upon which temporal blessings or curses are placed upon the entire church. And certainly nothing like that in the Standards pertaining the the visible church as a whole. The covenant structures under the Mosaic Law and the Gospel are not parallel. Heb 8:6-9,
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
“For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
“Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
LikeLike
McMark- I think we’re talking past each other here.
1) My point about not knowing who the elect are was to say that too many people get caught up in whether or not they’re elect before they even consider whether they have been called. They say “I’ll profess when I know I’m elect” or “professing Christ is only for the elect” and so they sit and wait…and wait. Rather they should be striving to close in with Christ, to discern whether they are being called to Christ and then they should be about making their election sure. Election is a glorious and comforting doctrine, but it’s God’s business: who the elect are.
2) I certainly agree that Christ died for the elect and only the elect. I don’t believe I said anything to the contrary. And I absolutely agree that we cannot say to the sinner: Christ loves you and died for you. But we can say to the sinner: Christ dies for sinners, your are a sinner, therefore flee to Christ from the wrath which is to come; repent and believe. That is what I mean by an indiscriminate offer: the Gospel should be preached to all, for all are commanded to believe, with sinners being told of the good news that Christ came to save sinners.
3) My point about “in the church” is that the Gospel is preached to the covenant community. Surely this is appropriate: to preach the salvation to be found in Christ within covenant community. The offer of the gospel is to all without distinction- i.e. it does not matter whether one is rich, poor, a harlot or the most “moral” man in the village the gospel is offered to them all the same. But throughout historyit is clear that there are those peoples who were blessed with the gospel light and those which weren’t. And even within those blessed nations there are those who have sat under the gospel proclamation all their lives and those who have never heard one sermon. Where the gospel is offered is important. It’s part of God’s outworking of salvation: ordinarily within the visible church.
4) As to God’s love for the reprobate: I do tent to find this discussion a bit confusing. Pink seemed pretty adamant that God does not love the reprobate- but then apparently he’s a supralapsarian. But Scripture does tell us that God desires all to repent, and that he does not delight in the death of the wicked. It is the saints’ deaths in which He delights. Yes there are contexts to these passages- I’m certainly not advocating universalism. However, it’s also true that they are expressions of God’s mercy. He has given time for all men to repent. Whether they take the chance to do so is another matter. God is merciful as well as just. All these things have to be reconciled.
5) Hyper-calvinism, in denying the free offer (and that is the proper definition of Hyper-calvinism) does not offer good news to sinners. I’ve read the literature, I’ve heard accounts of those who grew up in those churches: there is not offer of the gospel in their preaching, all the emphasis is on personal experience, people actively discouraged from sitting at the Lord’s table. That is the environment where the Gospel is not offered as freely as Scripture commands: to sinners as sinners, to all men without distinction.
LikeLike
Todd,
I’m not clear what your view is, even with the Turretin quote. If the law is of grace, why the threat for not obeying all of it?
It’s not a quote; it’s my attempt at a synopsis of Turretin (and obviously not as clear as I had hoped). Where did I ever say the law is of grace (not that there aren’t senses in which it is)? Todd, I realize you’re committed to the view that the Mosaic covenant is substantially distinct from the covenant of grace and we can spend all day going back and forth and neither of us will convince the other. (As I’ve mentioned, I spent a number of years attempting to persuade others of your view.) But in my opinion (now), the vast majority of Reformed theologians correctly understood the MC as an administration of the covenant of grace, and in doing so they did not confound the law and the gospel, but clarified them both.
LikeLike
As I say: I don’t think we disagree. But your talk of Amyraldianism made me suspicious.
LikeLike
David, it helps in that I understand what you are communicating. I don’t think it does justice to the text as regards the antagonism between faith and works because of the substance of a working principle in the MC which is at variance with the NC. Btw, I understand and try to practice the idea of surrendering to a position in order to understand it. I’ve had to do more than just parrot someone else’s religious views in my own life, though I do take advantage of other’s insights and callings to inform my own understandings as should we all. Still, I’m gonna continue to read on.
LikeLike
David,
I’m glad that wasn’t a quote, but just to be clear, we all affirm the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, there is simply disagreement how the various aspects of the law point to Christ, whether there was a temporary substructure of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience that is not of grace, but works, that was meant to fail and drive them to Christ. Some have said yes, some no. Personally, if we end up in the same place, I’m not sure why some want to raise this to the level they have.
LikeLike
Jack,
But even the elect Israelites suffered this exile. There is no similar conditional NT visible church covenant keeping upon which temporal blessings or curses are placed upon the entire church.
I’m not sure that exile ever ended (unless you want to say it ended in principle with the ascension of Christ). But we (believers today) are still living in exile as we await our final possession of the promised inheritance. I think Todd wants to say that it’s different in that Israel’s was penal and ours isn’t but I dunno, seems to me exile is exile….
LikeLike
“clothed with the form of the covenant of works.” is ok, but CoW overlay above the substratum CoG is so wrong?
“However, the vast majority of Jews mistook the legal “clothing” for an actual covenant of works for salvation”
I totally agree! but that’s because you’re all of a sudden sounding to me exactly like Kline. The Jews mistook the CoW for staying in the land, with the CoG by which they could be saved by faith!
LikeLike
Todd,
I’m glad that wasn’t a quote, but just to be clear, we all affirm the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace …
No, that’s simply not true. As you know, there are at least some in your camp who would claim to embrace something like the “subservient covenant” or “third covenant view,” which makes a point of distinguishing the MC from the covenant of grace. (So what you say does anything but clarify!)
LikeLike
Daniel’s exile was penalty for Israel violating their republished covenant of works.
Our exile is the same as Abraham’s exile, a penalty for Adam violating the original covenant of works.
LikeLike
I have never heard that. I am familiar with Kline’s formulation of the CoG “substratum” with a CoW “overlay”.
LikeLike
RubeRad,
“clothed with the form of the covenant of works.” is ok, but CoW overlay above the substratum CoG is so wrong?
One difference is that the old view posits a material republication of the original covenant of works (i.e., the same condition of perfect obedience, and the same promise of eternal life); not a modified works covenant in which less-than-perfect (“typologically legible”) obedience constitutes the meritorious ground for inheriting merely temporal blessings. Also, the old view denies that OT saints merited (even temporal) stuff.
LikeLike
David,
Distinguishing the typological covenant between God and Israel to remain in the Holy Land, which was a works arrangement, from grace, does not deny that it was ordained to administer the covenant of grace. If it did we would have a history of trials in the reformed camp against all who held that view. You have yet to demonstrate what is so dangerous with Kline’s view, beside the fact you have your own view of the matter which is not every clear in itself.
LikeLike
It’s not clear to me how much Kline came to disagree with what he had written earlier in By Oath Consigned. Kline wrote about “the proper purpose of the covenant, the salvation of the elect.” p 34. But he also cautioned that “we are not to reduce the redemptive covenant to that proper purpose.” Those who don’t continue to believe the gospel are condemned. (John 3:18).
The condemnation for those who do not believe is true, but to me that is no argument for thinking of “the covenant” on two levels, one of which is “non-redemptive”. . Despite inability,all have a duty to believe the gospel. All have a duty to come into the new covenant in which “all know the Lord “. But this is something different from saying that the non-elect are in the new covenant, and will be cursed by the new covenant if they don’t continue to believe..
When we receive other Christians merely by their profession of faith, this does not mean that we think their faith is in God giving them the ability to keep a conditional covenant. To the contrary, faith in the gospel comes with a confession of our bankruptcy which rules out any future covenant keeping as a basis for God blessing us.
Kline resisted the “bent toward such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality…”The historical reality for Kline is “actual divine vengeance against disobedience as covenantal”. I agree about divine vengeance but I question if this wrath is “covenantal”. Which covenant? Is “the covenant of grace” also a “covenant of law and threats”?
Do those who are never initiated into the new covenant experience wrath? I am sure Kline would agree with me that they do. But this is something different from saying that those who experience the wrath of God were once members of the new covenant. Those who hear the gospel and reject it face greater condemnation but this does not prove that they EVER knew the Lord covenantally. Matthew 7 teaches us that there are those who never knew the Lord.
I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant curse on Jesus Christ. But since Christ has satisfied the covenant for all those in the new covenant, how can Kline speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant?
LikeLike
Todd,
Distinguishing the typological covenant between God and Israel to remain in the Holy Land, which was a works arrangement, from grace, does not deny that it was ordained to administer the covenant of grace.
Those who held to the subservient covenant view of the MC (formulated by John Cameron I believe) held that the MC ran alongside the covenant of grace and subserved it. But they denied that the MC itself administered grace (rather, they viewed it as administering only law), and hence they refrained from referring to it as “an administration of the covenant of grace.” Instead, they understood it to be a specifically distinct, “third covenant” (i.e., in addition to the covenant of works and covenant of grace).
With all due respect, the language you are using is confusing because you are not using the term “administration” in the same sense it was originally used, that is, as antithetical to “substance.” (Your language here is a good example of why I opined in my original comment in this thread that a return to scholastic language would be helpful.)
LikeLike
Todd—“we ALL affirm the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, there is simply disagreement how the various aspects of the law point to Christ”
mcmark–no, not all of us agree, and I am not talking about Tonto and me. I am talking David Gordon, “John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism” in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p 121
Gordon—I am perfectly happy with retaining the covenant of works, by any label, because it was a historic covenant; what I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language.
Gordon—Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow.
Gordon— Murray jettisoned was the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed 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.
Gordon–The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity; they believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration
When Paul and the other NT writers use the word covenant, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).
LikeLike
David R—You are not using the term “administration” in the same sense it was originally used, that is, as antithetical to “substance.”
mark—yes, and we don’t have to be “scholastic” to ask for definitions. It’s quite modern to deconstruct the differences assumed but never defined. Being “confessional” is not the same as “begging the question”. Or “ignoring the questions”.
LikeLike
Mark,
Thank you for your clarity on this issue (and also for your compliment to me on my original comment).
LikeLike
I’m not sure that exile ever ended (unless you want to say it ended in principle with the ascension of Christ). But we (believers today) are still living in exile as we await our final possession of the promised inheritance.
David, I’ll concede that, but not that believers today are in exile because of covenant breaking. There’s the rub. It’s just the normal sojourner/pilgrim lot in life for God’s people be it Abraham or you. But neither you nor Abraham have been exiled for breaking God’s covenant. Rather you are in exile (waiting for that heavenly city), as it were, because you are a chosen recipient of the grace and blessings of the fulfilled New Covenant. And you are not part of a visible church that is under threat of covenant curses to be exacted upon the whole if a covenant were to be broken by the church. That category no longer exists. It did exist under the Mosaic covenant and one could say that was one of its weaknesses or faults. And that is one reason (along with an earthly mortal priesthood and sacrifices that could not cleanse from sin) why a better covenant was enacted.
LikeLike
Sean,
David, it helps in that I understand what you are communicating. I don’t think it does justice to the text as regards the antagonism between faith and works because of the substance of a working principle in the MC which is at variance with the NC.
Thanks for reading and also for affirming that I successfully communicated.
Btw, I understand and try to practice the idea of surrendering to a position in order to understand it.
I try to do the same, though I confess I find it very difficult to do so successfully. It takes a radical paradigm shift for my stubborn mind to change….
I’ve had to do more than just parrot someone else’s religious views in my own life, though I do take advantage of other’s insights and callings to inform my own understandings as should we all.
I understand that you’ve had to cut your own swath, as have I (having been raised by liberal Jewish parents).
LikeLike
David,
I was referring to Bolton’s view, which was acceptable, but I do think we are using the term administer differently. The Puritans who held to a republication of the cov. of works in Moses were not accused and tried for denying the Confession on the one covenant of grace for individuals throughout both testaments. All would say the Mos. cov. administered grace through the sacrifices, promises, but they separated the law as bare command and the law in total, and the law as bare command administered law to drive them to Christ. The fact that this is difficult to explain succinctly, for you or me, demonstrates the difficulty of the question.
Mark, I don’t think Gordon is denying the Confession in those quotes, though he might quibble with wording and titles, as did Murray in the opposite direction.
LikeLike
Todd, I think you’re right:
I don’t think Gordon is denying the Confession in those quotes, though he might quibble with wording and titles, as did Murray in the opposite direction.
I asked Dr. Gordon about this and he replied that his “concern is only lexical; it is not substantial.”
LikeLike
Todd,
I was referring to Bolton’s view, which was acceptable …
Yes, he held to Cameron’s view, though “modestly” he says. So he would have been inclined to deny that the MC was an administration of the covenant of grace.
The Puritans who held to a republication of the cov. of works in Moses were not accused and tried for denying the Confession on the one covenant of grace for individuals throughout both testaments.
It’s interesting to read Turretin’s discussion of this question. In his opinion, those who held the MC to be the covenant of works (not a “third covenant,” mind you) were not substantially different from the majority who held it to be the covenant of grace. Rather, the difference was merely in the use of terms, the former speaking of the MC “strictly considered” (i.e., bare precepts of the moral law) and the latter speaking of it “broadly considered” (i.e., the whole teaching of Moses).
The only position Turretin wants to refute as heterodox is the “third covenant” (Cameronian) position. I wonder what he would have said about the idea that Noah and Abraham merited temporal blessings for their descendants.
All would say the Mos. cov. administered grace ….
No, I don’t think they “all” would have said that (for the reasons I tried to give above), as they strove for precision.
The fact that this is difficult to explain succinctly, for you or me, demonstrates the difficulty of the question.
I’ll agree with you there.
LikeLike
David,
Yes, “all” was a generality, as befits blog discussions. I still would like to hear why you believe Kline’s view is dangerous. What does it threaten?
LikeLike
Is this an administration of “the covenant of grace”? or is it some kind of legal ordeal/intrusion?
Exodus 32: 25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies), 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. 27 And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’”
28 And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. 29 And Moses said, “Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, SO THAT GOD WILL bestow a blessing upon you this day.”
LikeLike
I am itching to deconstruct the difference in the Brakel between “had to enter the covenant” and “obligated to accept this offer and enter into the covenant.” Also Jack’s distinction between substantil and legal….But instead I want to ask you, David R, about another “difference”;
I copy you—The substance of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of grace revealed in the types; whereas the legal covering, though the most conspicuous part of it was accidental/administrative…. However, the vast majority of Jews mistook the legal “clothing” for an actual covenant of works for salvation (this is standard Reformed theology, not a “misinterpretation theory” concocted by Murray),
mark–Here’s my question. What is the difference between the “standard view” of Jews mistaking the Mosaic “adminstration” for a covenant of works and the “misinterpretation theory” of John Murray ?(and Dan Fuller, and Oscar Cullman, the list goes on). Surely you meant more than the connotations of “concoct”, did you not? Murray concots, the standard view did not? Was it law that increased sin, or was it a misunderstanding of law which increased sin? We know that, in either case, what happened with the Mosaic covenant was ordained by God?
But how is “the standard” (question-begging term usually) understanding of “misunderstanding” different from that of John Murray? This is the old question everybody used to ask Mark Karlberg—did the Mosaic law-covenant announce clearly that it was a “killing instrument” and not the gospel? If it did not, who could blame any Jew for using the law wrong , and attempting to be justified before God by keeping its conditions?
The central text discussed in this connection is Romans 9:32–”They did not seek if by faith, as if it were by works of law.” Some who focus only on redemptive history say that there is no difference between law and gospel, but only a right way and a wrong way of pursuing the law, and that the gospel is the right way of pursuing the law. One good rebuttal to that idea is an essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): “Why Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32.”
Gordon writes that the verse should be translated not “as if it were”, but “because the law is not of faith” in line with Gal 3:12. “The qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32.”
“If one group attained what the other did not, the difference between them might lie in the manner in which they pursued it. This is now what Paul says however. The two groups did not pursue the same thing (the gentiles pursued nothing). Paul’s point therefore is NOT that the Gentiles pursued righteousness in a better manner (by faith) than the Jews. Rather, God’s mercy gives what is not even pursued….When Paul asks why the Jews did not attain unto the Torah, his answer addressed the NATURE of the law- covenant (Torah demands perfect obedience), not the nature of the PURSUIT of the law-covenant.”
LikeLike
Todd,
Yes, “all” was a generality, as befits blog discussions.
Well, you said that “All would say the Mos. cov. administered grace ….” But as I’d said, those who held the third covenant view would deny that the MC administered grace.
I still would like to hear why you believe Kline’s view is dangerous. What does it threaten?
Honestly? I have read Kingdom Prologue cover-to-cover and spent a good deal of time studying portions of it (as well as reading a good deal of Kline’s other stuff) and I STILL am not exactly sure how to relate his discussion of the MC to the traditional views.
One potential problem though, it seems to me, is that he appears to bring a “works principle” and “merit” into the covenant of grace that doesn’t belong there. But then again, he also seems to redefine merit, so things are confusing….
While I have this opportunity though, perhaps you can help clarify something for me (but bear with me first for some background prior to my question):
A covenant is defined by its conditions and sanctions. The CoW requires perfect obedience as the condition for eternal life (as you know!). Whereas the CoG graciously promises life and salvation in Christ received by faith, which is also a gift of grace. The majority Reformed view is that the MC is substantially the CoG (i.e., it possesses the identical promises and conditions). Those who preferred to speak of it as “a renewal of the covenant of works” were viewing it in the “strict sense” of the moral law holding out eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience. But both these groups held that there were only two substantially distinct covenants, the CoW and the CoG.
Those who spoke of the MC as a “third covenant” thought that it held out the promise of temporal blessings in Canaan on the condition of perfect obedience. (Interestingly, they thought that the covenant of works promised a happy life in Eden, not heaven. But since this promise is different from blessings in Canaan, in their view there were a total of three substantially distinct covenants rather than just two.)
So please help: With respect to what you refer to as “Kline’s view” of the MC above, a few questions (and please try to avoid talk of two layers of strata in your answer, unless you are willing to concede that you are speaking of two substantially distinct covenants)….
1. What precisely is the condition of the Mosaic covenant? (For example, is it perfect obedience, like in the covenant of works, or something less than that?)
2. What is the promise? (Eternal life? Temporal blessings?)
3. Is it a third substantially distinct (not just administratively distinct) covenant, that is, in addition to the CoW and CoG (which it appears to be)?
Thanks!
LikeLike
David,
Again, I think you are mistaken when you say those who held the third view think the MC did not administer grace. In the way you are using the term administer, the MC as bare law administered law – the MC as promise and type administered grace. Moses administering law opposed to grace was a common puritan view, as Bunyan shows in Pilgrim’s Progress:
“So soon as the man overtook me, it was but a word and a blow; for down he knocked me, and laid me for dead. But when I was a little come to myself again I asked him wherefore he served me so. He said because of my secret inclining to Adam the First. And with that he struck me another deadly blow on the breast, and beat me down backward; so I lay at his foot as dead as before. So when I came to myself again I cried him mercy: but he said, I know not how to show mercy; and with that he knocked me down again. He had doubtless made an end of me, but that one came by and bid him forbear…`That man that overtook you was Moses,” says Christian, and he `spareth none, neither knoweth he how to show mercy to those that transgress his law.'”
I’ll answer your other questions in a bit. Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Mark,
mark–Here’s my question. What is the difference between the “standard view” of Jews mistaking the Mosaic “adminstration” for a covenant of works and the “misinterpretation theory” of John Murray ?
Good question. I’ve only read a few things by Murray, and not much on this issue, but I have read his comments on Leviticus 18:5. As I understand it, Murray thinks that text presents an “interpretive problem” because it occurs in a redemptive context in its original setting and therefore he thinks it shouldn’t, in that original setting, be understood in a legal sense. Hence he says that Paul must be quoting it in terms of how the Jews misunderstood it. Whereas most of the older writers I’ve encountered (not that I’ve read more than a few, but Calvin, Turretin, Witsius, Roberts) understood Lev 18:5 to objectively present the demands and promises of the covenant of works in order to drive the Israelites to Christ. I hope I have this close to correct….
LikeLike
Todd,
Again, I think you are mistaken when you say those who held the third view think the MC did not administer grace.
Yes, it’s possible I’m mistaken on this but I don’t think so. They held that the covenant of grace administered grace. The subservient covenant (i.e., the MC) administered only law).
That’s a great Bunyan passage. As a Baptist, I suspect he would have distinguished the MC from the CoG in a way that the Reformed in general would not (correct me if I’m wrong, McMark), but that’s certainly a wonderful portrayal of the pedagogical use of the law.
LikeLike
David,
Bunyan’s view was not only baptist, but common Puritan, as in Reformed Puritan. I’ll try this one last time. When considering the Mosaic covenant, theologians distinguished the Mosaic law as bare law, or bare command, and the Law as through it’s symbols and promises pictured free grace, thus Calvin:
“Moreover, inasmuch as this is the only true preparation for Christ, the statements, though made in different words, perfectly agree with each other. But because he had to dispute with perverse teachers, who pretended that men merited justification by the works of the Law, he was sometimes obliged, in refuting their error, to speak of the Law in a more restricted sense, merely as law, though, in other respects, the covenant of free adoption is comprehended under it.” (Institutes 2.7.2)
1. What precisely is the condition of the Mosaic covenant? (For example, is it perfect obedience, like in the covenant of works, or something less than that?)
The nation must obey the law to receive it’s blessings – Deut 28
2. What is the promise? (Eternal life? Temporal blessings?) The covenant stipulated that if Israel obeyed the law they would inherit the blessings of Deut 28. and remain in God’s presence – the Holy Land. Though Jesus applied the typological conditionality that bound the nation to the ind. in a hypothetical, eternal sense – Rich Young Ruler – If you would obey all the commandments you would inherit everlasting life, just as if Israel had obeyed the stipulations of the covenant she would have inherited the blessings of the Holy Land.
3. Is it a third substantially distinct (not just administratively distinct) covenant, that is, in addition to the CoW and CoG (which it appears to be)?
It is a reappearance of the covenant of works in a typological situation that was only hypothetical in that God said from the beginning they would not be able to keep it (Deut 31) and therefore be exiled (like Adam). And yet even as the covenant sanctions/curses were administered for breaking the covenant, the law through it’s promises, types and sacrificial system, as well as the covenant to Abraham, which was all grace, held out hope for a better covenant that could not be broken. So it (MC) served the interests of the covenant of grace but was not in its formula of obedience to attain life a covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thanks. Regarding the Bunyan quote, I agree with you that it is compatible with the Reformed understanding of the law, but I doubt that all Reformed would have been entirely comfortable with the very last sentence, “‘That man that overtook you was Moses,’ says Christian, and he `spareth none, neither knoweth he how to show mercy to those that transgress his law,’” since they would have rejected the premise that Moses didn’t administer grace. But maybe I’m nitpicking….
Thanks very much for humoring me and taking the time to answer my questions. If you still have the patience, I would be grateful for a few follow-up clarifications in order to be sure I understand.
The nation must obey the law to receive it’s blessings – Deut 28
Okay. But to be clear, you’re saying the condition is perfect obedience, as it was for Adam in the covenant of works?
The covenant stipulated that if Israel obeyed the law they would inherit the blessings of Deut 28. and remain in God’s presence – the Holy Land. Though Jesus applied the typological conditionality that bound the nation to the ind. in a hypothetical, eternal sense – Rich Young Ruler – If you would obey all the commandments you would inherit everlasting life, just as if Israel had obeyed the stipulations of the covenant she would have inherited the blessings of the Holy Land.
So you are saying that what the MC promised was temporal blessings in the holy land, right? (Or are you saying that it promised everlasting life? I think the former but I’m not quite sure….)
It is a reappearance of the covenant of works in a typological situation that was only hypothetical in that God said from the beginning they would not be able to keep it (Deut 31) and therefore be exiled (like Adam).
Okay, by “the covenant of works,” I understand you to mean a “reappearance” of the covenant God made with Adam, promising eternal life on condition of perfect and personal obedience, correct? But above you said (I thought) that the promise was temporal blessings in the Holy Land. If that’s what you meant, then you would actually be speaking of a substantially distinct third covenant and not actually “the covenant of works,” which promises eternal life. Can you clarify this?
So it (MC) served the interests of the covenant of grace but was not in its formula of obedience to attain life a covenant of grace.
This seems to clarify that for you, the MC is distinct from the covenant of grace, which seems consistent with what you’ve said above. Now I understand that you either hold the MC to be the covenant of works or a third covenant, but I would need your answers to those last few questions to be clear.
LikeLike
David R., “Take a rest from Kline, Gordon and Scott Clark.”
How about Paul? Why doesn’t he talk about Moses, or identify the law with Hagar?
Maybe you need to read less Dennison.
LikeLike
David, you wrote,
That’s what
sheClark said.LikeLike
David R., can’t speak for Todd but a republicationist like Scott Clark — whom you disregard — does not say that the Mosaic Covenant is substantially distinct from the covenant of grace.
That is simply wrong.
LikeLike
David R., “there are at least some in your camp who would claim to embrace something like the “subservient covenant” or “third covenant view,” which makes a point of distinguishing the MC from the covenant of grace.”
Who?
Not the people in TLNF.
Don’t bring straw men around here.
LikeLike
Todd, I think David has read enough Kerux to buy the misrepresentation (if not slander).
LikeLike
1. What precisely is the condition of the Mosaic covenant? (For example, is it perfect obedience, like in the covenant of works, or something less than that?)
Since we are dealing in typology, and we are dealing with a nation as a whole, it cannot be perfect individual obedience to remain in the land, but a general obedience that worships Jehovah and not other gods. Deut. 29: 24-27 “the nations will ask: “Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?” And the answer will be: “It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt. They went off and worshiped other gods and bowed down to them, gods they did not know, gods he had not given them. Therefore the LORD’s anger burned against this land, so that he brought on it all the curses written in this book.”
Kline writes: “The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum. There was a foundational stratum having to do with the personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation and this underlying stratum, continuous with all preceding and succeeding administrations of the Lord’s Covenant of Grace with the church, was informed by the principle of grace (cf., e.g., Rom 4:16). Because the Abrahamic covenant of promise found continuity in the Mosaic order at this underlying level, it was not abrogated by the latter. The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provision an earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum … The Israelite people corporately could maintain their continuing tenure as the theocratic kingdom in the promised land only as they maintained the appropriate measure of national fidelity to their heavenly King.”
2. What is the promise? (Eternal life? Temporal blessings?)
The blessings of Deut 28 are earthly, thus temporary
The covenant stipulated that if Israel obeyed the law they would inherit the blessings of Deut 28. and remain in God’s presence – the Holy Land. It is a reappearance of the covenant of works in a typological situation that was only hypothetical in that God said from the beginning they would not be able to keep it (Deut 31) and therefore be exiled (like Adam).Jesus applied the typological conditionality that bound the nation to the ind. in a hypothetical, eternal sense to the Rich Young Ruler – If you could obey all the commandments you would inherit everlasting life, just as if Israel had obeyed the stipulations of the covenant she would have inherited the blessings of Deut 28. So it (MC) served the interests of the covenant of grace but was not in its formula of obedience to attain blessings in the Land a covenant of grace.
I think where people get confused is that it seems God did not strictly enforce the covenant curses when they first worshiped other gods, so it seems like grace instead of works was the operating principle. While it is certainly gracious for God to hold off punishment until the last second, his punishment arrived when the nation as a whole, from leaders on down, rejected Yahweh for other gods – so God did exactly as he said he would do when Israel broke the covenant. The new covenant cannot be broken, it is unlike the MC, because Christ fulfilled it for us.
3. Is it a third substantially distinct (not just administratively distinct) covenant, that is, in addition to the CoW and CoG (which it appears to be)?
I would call the MC as bare law a subservient works covenant of typology pointing to Christ the true Israel who would merit all the blessings in the eternal Promised Land that the Deut 28 blessings pictured.
LikeLike