David Murray concludes his four-part series on Merit and Moses — the book that is anti-republication — by boiling it down to this:
. . . my own concerns about RP have grown as I’ve increasingly come into contact with people who are using the RP to argue against any place of the law in the Christian life. They hear RP teachers saying that Israel obeyed the law to merit the land, but the NT believer is no longer under that arrangement. Thus they conclude, we don’t need to obey God’s law any more. Again, I know that’s not what RP intends but it is such a complex and confusing system that even those who have heard it explained many times still struggle to understand and communicate it accurately. I remember the first time I heard the RP preached, I thought, “What on earth was that?” To some degree, I still feel that sense of bafflement. With theology, I’ve often noticed that the more complex a system, the more likely that it’s wrong.
What is striking about this conclusion is that Murray (David, that is) winds up basically where Norman Shepherd started — Christians in the 1970s believed they could dispense with the law (thanks either to D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion or Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology). Shepherd opposed such antinomianism and wasn’t even contending with republication or 2-kingdom theology. He was, of course, sorting covenant theology out to some degree with Meredith Kline, who turned out to be one of the leading opponents of Shepherd. And Kline, as David Murray points out, represents for the authors of Merit and Moses the overreaction against Shepherd.
Has anyone yet to show us what the right reaction against Shepherd is? The folks who have been most vigorous in opposing where Shepherd led (i.e. Federal Vision) were some of the people who wrote for The Law is Not of Faith. Do they get credit for that? Not much. And what about the Murrayites (not David) who didn’t go the way of Federal Vision? Were they critical of Shepherd or Federal Vision? Or did they sit on their hands? Or how about the Obedience Boys? Have they had their innings with Norman Shepherd who argued for an obedient faith?
My contention is still that the very small world of U.S. conservative Presbyterian and Reformed believers has not yet gotten over Shepherd.
Old Life 
D.G., Corinth, Rome, Philly …. I’ll let you pick the city, alright?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Maybe it would help if I clarify (and perhaps revise a bit what I said above) that in fact I do not believe that Vos is making an exact parallel. The difference in the parallel he makes is of course to be explained by the distinction between “the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression” (characterizing the OT) and what perhaps we can label (something to the effect of) the antitypical sphere of realized eschatology (in the NT). Hence, the holiness required in the OT as the condition for possessing the typological inheritance is merely a type; whereas that required for possessing the antitypical one is the reality.
So what exactly is the parallel? It is that in both cases (as Vos says), “holiness” is “the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance.” Now, can we agree that the holiness he speaks of wrt the NT is the believer’s sanctification?
With that out of the way, I would then ask you (as I think I have above): If in both cases, we are speaking of a condition that is “not meritorious” (Vos), then how can it possibly entail a works principle (in the OT)? Given what you’ve said thus far, your response would be to the effect that there has to have been a works principle in the OT because the inheritance wasn’t guaranteed; whereas in the NT it is. Assuming this is basically what you would say, my response is that in the NT, the inheritance is not at all guaranteed to those who have been externally admitted into the covenant. It is only guaranteed to those who partake of its substance. Hence, the fact that there is no guarantee of inheriting does not (in and of itself) imply a works principle. So again I ask: if we’re speaking of a non-meritorious condition, how can a works principle possibly be involved?
(If you need further clarification on anything, then I would be happy to attempt to engage your above comment more directly.)
LikeLike
David R., right you’re not affirming the works principle only Vos is.
Frankly David, you’re all over the place.
LikeLike
David R., if the church has to be obedient to keep the lampstand — that was your point — then answer the question. What about Corinth and Paul’s instruction to them?
LikeLike
David R., now I get it — a non-meritorious works principle. “Do this and whatever.”
LikeLike
Todd-
I think Romans 4 is talking about the CoW. Once established, there was a reward for perfect obedience which was due him who offered that perfect obedience. So, Adam, within the framework of the CoW, would have merited eternal life if he had passed the probation; and so if you or I were able to offer a perfect obedience to the law then we would merit eternal life. But that is not possible post-Fall, so we must look for another, i.e. Christ.
So Hell is the just punishment for breaking the covenant. But it was also the just punishment before the CoW was established, as the writers I quoted earlier say, because God was at liberty to require perfect obedience from his creatures, without rewarding them; and punish them upon their failure to perfectly obey.
One has to bear in mind that Adam’s perfect obedience in a state of innocency is not equal to God’s holiness, righteousness &c. for Adam was a finite creature. We are not dealing with equals here. Indeed, Adam was promised eternal life- within the CoW- after a probation so the obedience requred of him was not in any sense a quid pro quo. What Adam was being asked to offer was not of equal value, or directly correlative, to what he would have received: thus, grace.
A parent does not owe his child anything just because the child does the chores he has been commanded to do; and a parent has every right to punish a child for not doing those chores, as well as witholding reward for doing them. Parents often do reward children for chores done- allowance- but that is a gracious act and so we could see, speaking with all reverence, an analogy in that situation with the relationship between God and Adam pre and post covenanting.
But in Romans 4 I would say Paul is talking about the CoW and that those who offer perfect obedience, within that covenant, are entitled to eternal life, as a debt/wage. But no one can do that, except Christ, who did it.
LikeLike
Zrim- You mentioned about people calling the CoW gracious. I admit, it was an aside but I decided to run with it, but I think it’s a useful and interesting discussion to have.
I don’t think the picture you use of the judge is accurate for the CoW though, it’s a CoG picture. Adam was not before a Judge accused of wrongdoing, within the CoW pre-Fall, as the sinner is post-Fall, was he?
LikeLike
Alexander, you say God was under no obligation to enter into a covenant with man. Well, can you imagine a good and trinue God creating someone in his own image and then letting the creature exist like a cat? I don’t know if obligation is the right word, but a faithful God could be expected to do more than your contention that God was under no obligation. Was he not obligated to himself?
LikeLike
Alexander, “One has to bear in mind that Adam’s perfect obedience in a state of innocency is not equal to God’s holiness, righteousness &c. for Adam was a finite creature.”
So Jesus, because he was divine, wasn’t really tempted as we are.
You’re starting to sound Eastern Orthodox, as if man’s sin problem is really ontological.
LikeLike
D.G., I’m not sure I understand your question. Was the Corinthian church apostate? Should we ignore Revelation 2?
LikeLike
DR, well what would the union-with-Christ folks say about sleeping with your stepmother? What’s apostasy? Violating the seventh or the second commandment?
If you’re so quick to jump on the condemnation of Turkish churches, what about the Greek ones?
LikeLike
Alexander, I think it’s agreed that Creator and creature aren’t equal. That’s not the point from over here. The point is that the CoW is “do this and live, don’t and die.” There is nothing gracious whatever about that. It’s all law. And now you’re saying that what was offered doesn’t compare to what was required, as in life and righteousness aren’t co-equal. Does that mean heaven won’t be as great as the Bible says and hell won’t be quite as awful? Can you see how your theory here doesn’t exactly foster the faithful nor incentivize the yet unbelieving with respect to what eternal life or death means?
I wonder if you have children. As a parent, I get your point in theory, but it doesn’t work in reality (sorry, but you seem to have a reality problem in various ways). Sure, there are times I’d like to say, “Do it because I said do it, that should be enough.” And sometimes that’s the deal. But if I’ve set up an explicit quid pro quo arrangement, then to reward hap-hazardly and not in accord with established rules that bind each party is really to govern more like a tyrant than a father.
LikeLike
D.G., here’s the point: Jeff argues (I think) that the possibility of failure to inherit entails a works principle, and thus there was a works principle in the OT. My response is that this argument proves too much. In both the OT and NT administrations of the covenant of grace, there is no guarantee of inheriting, but only to those who partake of the substance of the covenant.
LikeLike
Zrim-
But the “quid pro quo”, or rather, “do this and live” arrangement didn’t exist until God entered into covenant with Adam. Until that happened Adam was under obligation to obey, without there being the obligation on God’s part to reward that obligation. The reward came in with the covenant. The issue is was Adam created in covenant or was the covenant after the creation. The old Reformed would say the covenant came after the creation.
You say that “do this and live” isn’t gracious, but I’m saying the provision itself is gracious. God didn’t need to say “do this and live” but He did, and that was gracious: as any movement of God towards Man is gracious. Of course the terms of the CoG are, technically, the same as the CoW- it’s just someone else who meets them. So if you say the terms of the CoW aren’t gracious then I think that calls into question the graciousness of the CoG, no? Why is it not gracious to offer reward to Adam for his obedience, but it is to offer reward to Christ for his obedience? Adam, pre-Fall, was endowed with the capacity to meet the terms of the covenant. Christ could not fail to meet the terms, but Adam at least was able to meet them. Now of course the CoG is far far more gracious- hence its name- but that’s because of the provision made, not necessarily because of the terms, no?
Also I don’t know what that has to do with Heaven and Hell. I mean, perfectly obeying the law for a week doesn’t equal life for eternity, does it? That was my point. Adam was given a probation and if he passed that probation he would inherit eternal life. Now we don’t know how long that probation would have been (the old divines supposed not very long at all) but however long it was, it wasn’t eternity, otherwise it wouldn’t be a probation. So at the end of the day, the “thing” which Adam was asked to give in reward for eternal life was not co–equal with eternal life. And Adam was a finite being, therefore he could not offer infinite holiness or righteousness, which is what God possesses.
On the other hand, Christ is an infinite being which is why his atonement- whilst only lasting a few hours- or the perfect obedience he offered for only a few years, is credited as meeting the standards of an eternal law. That is why an unsaved sinner must spend eternity in Hell paying for his sins, but Christ paid the price of his people’s sins in a matter of hours. It’s the person who is offering the sacrifice: the difference between a finite and an infinite being.
Dr. Hart-
I see your point about whether God would have just left Adam as he was. Of course, He didn’t. But you assume that Adam’s existence without a covenant would be bad: it seems it was a pretty good existence. After all, the fact he was created at all is more than he deserved. But it does seem likely that God created Man with a view to being in relationship with him- why else create him in His image? But we do, after all, have to still be precise in our working out the logical and temporal order of things and the concepts involved, do we not?
As to your second point: Christ was also human. He was the God-man, so that is a particular “thing” that applies to the second person. Christ was tempted as we are, except from anything within himself, wouldn’t we say? There was no sin in him or his flesh/humanity. Satan had no foothold in Christ by which to tempt him, because he was without sin. So there are differences between Christ and fallen man, because he was divine as well as human. Otherwise he couldn’t have made atonement.
But I don’t think this is really pertinent to what I’ve been saying. Adam, by virtue of being a creature, pre-Fall, whilst made in the image of God and endowed with an inherent righteousness, still wasn’t God. He wasn’t equal to God so we cannot say he was holy and righteous to the same extent that God was. By virtue of his creation he was inferior to God:
“I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.” WCF 7:1
Man could never have put God in obligation by mere fact of anything he did. God only became indebted to him, if that’s an appropriate way of speaking, because He condescended to place Himself in debt.
Anyway, I’m beginning to feel I’ve gone as far as I’m comfortable in going- if not moreso- so I’ll pull back. We must always be very careful about what we say about Christ and his work and our relationship with the eternal, ever blessed God. I hope I have made sense in what I’ve said.
LikeLike
Alexander, the business about what happened pre-covenant just seems speculative, so it’s not clear to me what’s to be gained speculating about the nature of that arrangement.
The point about the CoW being gracious or just is getting resistive, but it does seem to me to be muddying the waters to speak of what is clearly a legal as gracious. Again, my guess is that you actually mean “good” (i.e. it was good of God to covenant with man), in which case agreed.
The point about heaven and hell is that in an attempt to maintain the Creator-creature distinction and say that whatever aligns with the Creator surpasses in worth anything the creature does or earns as a result, you seem to be undermining the nature of both reward and punishment. Yes, in some sense obeying God for its own sake has (ahem) merit, but covenant theology is all about the organic nature of the relationship of Creator to creature; there has to be something in it for us for anything to resonate (I thought you guys were the affections crowd?). Maybe you think that is to detract from the glory of God, I don’t know, but how do you get creatures to care about any of it if you want to emphasize simply the greatness of God?
LikeLike
David R., do this and live or else is not a works principle? I’m not sure how you are reading texts.
And if you are saying that the elect have no guarantee of a long and prosperous life (which is not exactly what the Promised Land involved), sure. 2k and repub try to make that point all the time — believers actually do suffer for no good reason. But if you’re saying that God’s people will not persevere spiritually, then you’re not a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Alexander, I think you push too hard a line of discontinuity between Adam and Christ. Paul doesn’t do that which is why he draws so many parallels. You also disparage the humanity of Adam and Christ. It is the pinnacle of creation, you know.
LikeLike
D.G., if you’re saying anyone perseveres apart from electing grace, then you’re not a Calvinist. (Whew, this game gets tiring….)
LikeLike
David R., so how do you lose the privilege of the lamp post? You brought that up.
And so because Israel went into exile, they weren’t chosen?
LikeLike
Are they all Israel, which are of Israel?
LikeLike
David R. so why did all of Israel and Judah go into exile? Was it simply a repeat of Job?
LikeLike
D.G., I thought Vos’s answer to that question was pretty good. I can paste it again if you’d like….
LikeLike
David R:
Hi. I’ve gotten confused at this point as to what your actual view is about some things, so I think I will retrench and restate so that we can reengage.
Here is our point of agreement:
Hence, the holiness required in the OT as the condition for possessing the typological inheritance is merely a type; whereas that required for possessing the antitypical one is the reality.
I think this is exactly right, and I am pleased to see you now affirming rather than denying that the holiness required in the OT functioned typologically, for it was a condition for possessing the typological inheritance.
The questions before us now are,
(1) What or who is the antitype (for Vos, and in Scripture)?
(2) What counts as a “works principle” or “meritorious obedience”?
I’ll develop the first below.
Several options have been floated for understanding the type and antitype:
(A) The OT church is the type, the NT church is the antitype
(B) The OT church is the type, the Christian individual is the antitype.
I would like to add one to the list:
(C) The OT theocracy is the type, Christ himself is the antitype.
This is not an obvious read of Vos here, since he makes no mention of Christ as the antitype in our section. But in fact, he makes no mention of the antitype at all. His aim is not to develop that type, but to refute the Pharisaic view that the law was given for inheritance of eternal life on the ground of strict merit.
Part of the problem here is that you and I have tacitly agreed to mine Vos for a topic that he isn’t actually addressing — the function of obedience in the land as a type. For Vos, the “symbolico-typical” is a three-paragraph aside whose function is to repudiate liberal theologians who hold that the OT salvation economy was of a different variety (namely, operating under strict merit) than that of the NT.
Let me illustrate. Previously, you have asserted that the polar opposite categories here are “legal” and “typical.” Anything legal is not typical, anything typical is not legal. And you cited Vos in support of this view.
But if you continue on to Vos’s discussion of the prophets, we find that Jehovah’s righteousness by which He removes Israel from the land is of a forensic variety (p. 251), and that Vos conceives of the covenant as a legal relation together with divine promise (257). As seen in Hosea, the covenant is a legally defined relationship, on the basis of which Jehovah brings lawsuit against Israel (262). And going back to the passage we considered, Vos declares that
…we must not forget that this revelation and promulgation of the gospel in the Mosaic institutions bore, as to its form, a legal character, and differs, in this respect, from the form it exhibits at the present time … [The prefigured gospel] was not permitted to rise superior to the legal environment in which it had been placed. Only the New Testament the full liberty in this respect — BT 129
So it is clear that Vos does not consider “typological” and “legal” to be antonyms. And this is good, for now that you have conceded that Israel’s obedience was indeed the condition for inheritance of the type of eternal life, it would be very difficult to understand Turretin’s “legal cloak” if indeed that which is typological cannot also be legal.
So what is Vos’ contrast?
Again, the contrast is between on the one hand a legal system of strict merit that acquires eternal blessedness, and on the other a system in which obedience is the ground for acquiring the temporal type of blessedness.
So what is the antitype? Clearly, it must be the righteousness that does actually acquire eternal blessedness. And that righteousness is not our sanctification. I know you agree!
Where Vos goes in discussing Israel’s removal from the land is to show how the prophets point forward to the Messiah. For this reason, I believe that for Vos, the antitype is Christ Himself. I certainly believe that this is so in Scripture.
So what about the statement, And in Paul’s teaching the strand that corresponds to this Old Testament doctrine of holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance is still distinctly traceable?
It means simply that we see a reflection of the OT doctrine of holiness in Paul’s teaching on holiness. The language here is by no means strong enough to indicate a type-antitype relationship.
No, I think that
(1) The logic of type/antitype from lesser to greater, from imperfect to perfect requires that
Imperfect righteousness : land-inheritance :: Perfect righteousness : life-inheritance
Which requires that the righteousness in the second half be that of Christ and not our own imperfect sanctification.
(2) Vos’ subsequent development of the Content of Prophetic Revelation — keeping in mind that his aim is to develop the scope of Scriptural teaching — shows that he views the Messiah to be the antitype of Israel in the creation of the new and unbreakable covenant.
LikeLike
@ David R:
So what counts as a “works principle” and what counts as “merit”?
Here we need to distinguish. If we take “strict merit” to mean that the actions absolutely deserve the reward, then there is not and has never been a strict meritorious situation save for Christ’s obedience.
Not even the CoW was strictly meritorious.
But then we have “merit pactum”, in which the actions are stipulated (for whatever reason) as the ground for the reward. The CoW falls in this category.
Then further we have something like “congruent merit” in which actions are not exactly stipulated, and might even be imperfect, and yet are rewarded by grace. God’s reward for our good works falls in this category.
Here is the Catholic Dictionary on congruent merit: “Also called appropriate merit, it is any good deed that deserves reward on any one or more of a variety of grounds, but not in strict justice or fidelity to a promise. Thus friendship, compassion, kindness, and responding to a request are grounds for congruent merit.”
Why do I bring in Catholicism? Because I want to draw attention to the fact that what you have been calling “non-meritorious obedience” is in fact “congruently meritorious obedience” in the Catholic system.
And if you are then saying that our obedience is a non-meritorious ground for inheritance of eternal life, then you would really be saying that our obedience receives congruent merit unto eternal life.
And that is no different from Catholic soteriology.
In other words, the attempt to create the category of “non-meritorious grounds” is inherently self-contradictory. The phrase to merit by X action is synonymous with To be rewarded on the ground of X.
OK, so what is Vos saying when he speaks of “holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance”?
I believe he’s speaking of strict merit, given his contrast with the Pharisees earlier. But also, he is self-evidently not speaking of holiness as the ground for reception. Holiness is the posterior condition of being justified, not the anterior.
And in this way, it is very different from Israel’s obedience (or lack), which Vos in two places identifies as the ground for keeping (or losing) the land.
In short, one of the differences between Israel and us — and the difference that drives the unbreakability of the New Covenant — is that for national Israel, obedience was an anterior condition for receiving the land. For us, obedience is a posterior condition for having been justified and indwelt by the Spirit. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
So what about Rev 2 – 3? It’s been a while, but I believe Hodge deals with this. There is an extent to which the corporate, external dealings of God with the OT church do in fact carry over into the corporate, external dealings with the NT church.
But that function is one of pruning and engrafting, not one of destroying. In other words, not everything that happens to the theocracy is something that applies to the NT church as well.
LikeLike
Jeff wrote: (C) The OT theocracy is the type, Christ himself is the antitype.
Hello, is anyone listening?
LikeLike
Jeff, this makes a lot of sense (much more than anyone normally finds at Old Life), especially since the big point of repub is not the works principle in inheriting the land, but law as pedagogue — that is, Israel under the Mosaic administration shows the need for Christ. Forget the land. What Adam and Israel could not do, Christ did.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
The most common error among some…a number…..many?……in Reformed circles seems to be understanding the distinction in the covenants and that:
Our obedience/performance/good works might mean something in OT times under the temporal Sinaic-Mosaic Covenant – for being able to keep the soil under our feet (though clearly no one is/was that good but One), which is why
God had purposed in Eternity a better Covenant in/through Christ alone for the Elect (forever)
If there had not been a Republication of the Covenant of Works, then Christ’s Active Obedience to it could not have happened, and we would all be sure lost and condemned forever
So now, in Christ, the Law is our friend and our guide to conform us to the image of Christ
Sigma:Summation: Many in Reformed circles today still believe that obtaining God’s favor/blessing/Providence is by/through
our holiness
obedience
piety
practicing self-denial
standing in the gap
becoming martyrs for causes
taking stands in the public square on every jot and tittle which is anti-Christian
dying on every hill
transforming our culture
not smoking
not drinking
not dancing
not listening to the Rolling Stones or the Moody Blues
sacrificial giving till we bleed and hurt and die while others go to Alaska and fish/fly airplanes
promise to go to the mission field, even when it means a divorce-strained relations-separation because doing what God wants is more important than family
supporting Israel and the Republican-Tea party
Dr. Hart, and friends, do I have it right?
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Oh……one more thing…….
those of you (imitating Priolo & Adams) who doubt are damned if you eat……no place for I John 3:20 or William Cowper or – iiiieeehhh – Bunyan
in other words, do you have doubt? God is not pleased and won’t hear your prayer, and your doubt is letting down the prayer chain, and you are losing reward in heaven
you should not have any doubts at all about your salvation…..if you do, you might want to revisit the Sinner’s Prayer……….argument with your wife or child? disobedient children? bad for you!
LikeLike
“The Lord’s favor toward his people does not flow from [their] inner transformation but is the cause of it.”
– Ian Duguid (Covenant Nomism and the Exile)
LikeLike
Mr. Miller,
What you posted is ‘like a drink from a clear, rushing, mountain stream’ – thank you so very much.
LikeLike
semper, “If there had not been a Republication of the Covenant of Works, then Christ’s Active Obedience to it could not have happened, and we would all be sure lost and condemned forever.”
Not sure that this is the best way to put it. I’m not sure of the best way. But it seems you need to explain some terms and logic.
“Our obedience/performance/good works might mean something in OT times under the temporal Sinaic-Mosaic Covenant – for being able to keep the soil under our feet (though clearly no one is/was that good but One)”
What does this mean?
Not sure if this is the major problem confronting the reformed churches, but clearly we have long love affair with neonomianism.
LikeLike
Thanks so very much, Dr. Hart.
I have watched and listened and learned a lot on this discussion and debate. I even went back to the beginning to review/re-read all the way through, and am still at it.
Think of me as the little kid brother who is watching his older brothers playing baseball in the corner neighborhood lot, and who are having a terrific day at bat….and wants a turn at bat also. I may not be able yet to hold the bat so well, or do any better than hit a fly/foul ball, but I want to help my brothers out………………. (on being able to *define terms, logic, and meaning).
Correction: ‘Do this and live’ (holiness/performance/good works) would never mean anything – even in OT times under the Mosaic economy. It is all about what Christ has done, past, present, and future. You see how difficult it is to avoid the ‘creep’, even when you know and understand. Of course, the 3rd use of the Law is essential for us today, and the desire is in my heart to want to be Christ-like, and honor the Lord in every way, though imperfectly – (much imperfection) on my part.
*Could I invoke what my professor said about my college thesis in the early stages of it’s formulation and apply it to my writings here in this post? He said, “It’s not there yet, but there is an idea in there”. Do you think that I am ‘in the ballpark’? I agree about the neonomian influence in the church.
LikeLike
Addendum:
I would not want to cause confusion or muddy the waters in any way to suggest the notion that since Christ has done everything for us, there is nothing that I am supposed to do or commanded to do (Antinomianism). I care deeply about this.
My point is to clarify – to say that what Christ commands, Christ also supplies. All things are given to us in Christ, even our ability to desire Him, and to obey His commands (3rd use of the Law).
This is point of the discussion where the obedience boys ‘freak’…………..
LikeLike
Semper, I do think you are in the ballpark. I also think that though they may not be the last word our confessions are a good word on how to understand these things. And I believe the Ob Boys say more than needs to be said.
LikeLike
Really appreciate it, Dr. Hart. It’s a comfort and an encouragement to know if you’re ‘seeing correctly’, or on the ‘right track’. Definitely (on the confessions). I wish the PCA would adopt the Belgic, Heidelberg, and Dort Confessions in addition to the WCF.
On……’Ob boys say more than needs to be said’……I was thinking of a couple of my favorite film directors, David Lean and William Wyler:
David Lean said (about his approach to film-making) “I want to make clear a point, and a clear point of view”. His films won many Academy Awards….
William Wyler was known for bringing out wonderful values/nuances in his films that were so fine, that any discussion of them would subtract from the intended result. And his films won so many Academy Awards…………
LikeLike
Jeff,
Several options have been floated for understanding the type and antitype:
(A) The OT church is the type, the NT church is the antitype
(B) The OT church is the type, the Christian individual is the antitype.
I would like to add one to the list:
(C) The OT theocracy is the type, Christ himself is the antitype.
The thing is, we don’t have to guess, Vos tells us what the antitype is (and it’s none of the above):
The relative obedience of national Israel typified the consummate holiness of the saints in heaven.
For this reason, I believe that for Vos, the antitype is Christ Himself.
Honestly I don’t see how you can possibly extrapolate this from that passage. What’s interesting is that not even Kline claimed that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s obedience (though many Klineans seem to think he did). At least not in Kingdom Prologue he didn’t. Kline appears to have agreed with Vos on this one.
LikeLike
“Honestly I don’t see how you can possibly extrapolate this from that passage. What’s interesting is that not even Kline claimed that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s obedience (though many Klineans seem to think he did). At least not in Kingdom Prologue he didn’t.
Actually, he did, there and elsewhere;
“Israel’s obedience to the stipulations of the works arrangement mediated by Moses would be accepted as the legal ground of their continued possession of the typological kingdom. But Jesus does not summon the church to earn the eternal kingdom by obedience to the demands of the new covenant. Rather, it is as the one who, by the active and passive obedience of his life and death, has already merited salvation and the glory of the kingdom for his church that Jesus addresses to his disciples the great commission.” (Kline – By My Spirit)
“Within the limitations of the fallen world and with modifications peculiar to the redemptive process, the old theocratic kingdom was a reproduction of the original covenantal order. Israel as the theocratic nation was mankind stationed once again in a paradise-sanctuary, under probation in a covenant of works. In the context of that situation, the Incarnation event was legible; apart from it the meaning of the appearing and ministry of the Son of Man would hardly have been perspicuous. Because of the congruence between Jesus’ particular historical identity as the true Israel, born under the law, and his universally relevant role as the second Adam, the significance of his mission as the accomplishing of a probationary assignment in a works covenant in behalf of the elect of all ages was lucidly expressed and readily readable.” (Kingdom Prologue)
LikeLike
Having suffered under the heavy-handed/spiritually-abusive small groups before, I’m glad for this – lol
https://www.google.com/search?q=shallow+small+group&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
LikeLike
Of course, small groups are like the 12 tribes under the Sinaic/Mosaic Covenant……………………..
LikeLike
Okay, possibly I stand corrected by that quote from KP, but I’m not sure how to interpret that in light of passages like the following (also from KP) where he says that the obedience of certain OT saints such as Noah, Abraham and David were types of Christ’s obedience but he expresses a different view regarding Israel’s obedience:
LikeLike
David R:
The relative obedience of national Israel typified the consummate holiness of the saints in heaven.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. I completely missed the paragraph you cited and went wandering afield.
OK. So for Vos, the relative obedience of national Israel typifies the consummate holiness of the saints in heaven.
Where from there? We cannot argue, for example, that it typifies the relative obedience of saints now in their sanctification.
We’ve gotten to the point of agreeing that the stipulated obedience under the law was typological. What’s left?
LikeLike
Todd,
Having read through those Kline citations a few more times, and wanting to assume that Kline isn’t contradicting himself, it seems to me that in the passage you quote from KP, he is not actually drawing the line from Israel’s obedience to Christ’s obedience; rather he is drawing it from what he views as Israel’s probation (and prior to that, Adam’s) to Christ’s probation.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Where from there? We cannot argue, for example, that it typifies the relative obedience of saints now in their sanctification.
Agreed.
We’ve gotten to the point of agreeing that the stipulated obedience under the law was typological. What’s left?
Let’s take another look at his concluding thought:
So what’s the parallel he’s drawing?
National Israel’s relative obedience was “the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition” of retaining the typological inheritance of Canaan. The consummate holiness of the saints in heaven will be “the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition” of their receiving the heavenly inheritance. In neither case is a works principle involved. (He signifies this by saying “not meritorious.”)
LikeLike
Seems easy. But you still haven’t addressed Vos’s statement that obedience in Israel was the ground for retention of the land.
I feel comfident that you would not say that in the eschaton, our holiness would be the ground for possession of eternal life. We are received because we are glorified?
Nor have you yet addressed the fact that “meritorious” here is clearly in reference to strict merit.
So we’re not out of the woods yet. Israel was on probation in a way that the glorified in heaven will not be.
LikeLike
He clearly says it is not the meritorious ground. You want to say that he means it *is* the meritorious ground. And your reasoning seems to be that a “ground” has to be meritorious in some sense. But his whole discussion makes it clear he’s actually speaking in terms of a necessary condition, a sine qua non.
LikeLike
“he is not actually drawing the line from Israel’s obedience to Christ’s obedience; rather he is drawing it from what he views as Israel’s probation (and prior to that, Adam’s) to Christ’s probation.”
One entails the other. Israel’s probation was to obey to receive the Deut 28 typ. blessings or be exiled. Christ obeyed and inherited the (eternal) blessings Israel failed to in the . Thus it is typology by contrast (since all types includes similarity and contrast)
LikeLike
But in the passage I quoted, Kline distinuishes that one works arrangement (the MC) teaches about “the nature of the Messianic kingdom” and the other (covenants of grant) teaches about “the role of the Messianic king.” So he seemingly assigns a different typological role to Israel’s obedience there. I would be happy to be wrong but I’d like to know how to reconcile Kline with Kline.
LikeLike
David R. why are you worried so much about Kline and Vos? Fallible. What about Paul? Dennison?
LikeLike
D.G., it’s the fallible ones ya gotta worry about.
LikeLike