Why Republication Matters

Published on by D. G. Hart

What exactly is so threatening about this?

Every Reformed minister loves preaching from Romans and Galatians. Presenting the Mosaic law as teaching a works principle really helps in explaining Paul’s doctrine of justification: what sin is all about, why people can’t rely on their own law-keeping, how faith is radically different from works, how Christ fulfilled the terms of the law so that we may be justified. That’s the gospel as I see it, but you can’t explain the gospel without understanding the law. Or take all of those Old Testament passages that call for Israel’s obedience and promise blessing and threaten curse in the land depending on their response. For example, the beginning of Deuteronomy 4, which tells Israel to follow the law so that they may live and take possession of the land. Or Deuteronomy 28, which recounts all sorts of earthly blessings in the land if the Israelites are careful to obey and all sorts of earthly curses if they aren’t. I don’t want a congregation to think that God was holding out a works-based way of salvation here, and I also can’t tell the congregation that this is the same way that God deals with the New Testament church when he calls her to obedience, for there’s nothing equivalent in the New Testament, no promise of earthly blessing for the church today if we meet a standard of obedience. Saying either of those things might by simple, but of course they’d be misleading, and damaging for the church to hear. (The Law is Not of Faith, 5)

Could it be that this view seems to allow Christians to think that law-keeping does not contribute to their salvation? Well, if the law requires “personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it,” who is up to that challenge? Don’t be bashful.

809 thoughts on “Why Republication Matters”

  1. sdb, again, I agree (and I’m a layman too, btw). And implied in your explanation is an affirmation of the necessity of obedience. But D.G. seems insistent on denying that necessity.

    Like

  2. @ David: I think you’re misreading DGH. Having seen the Oldlife buzzsaw in action before, I would say that he’s trying to get you to consistently nuance “necessary.” Anteriorly necessary, as in ground, or posteriorly necessary, as in consequence?

    The appeal to glorification muddies the waters – it makes it seem as if you are saying that our obedience will be the cause of our glorification, which I would trust you would not believe.

    Like

  3. David R., really, really lame. Words matter. Type, anti-type, republication are all ways of saying that something is not actually something else.

    But since you seem intent on getching repub, “in some sense” becomes A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y even when you arbitrarily neglect the same conclusion with others.

    Like

  5. David R., you keep insisting but it’s like just your opinion. This is what the LC says is required to escape God’s wrath and curse:

    Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
    A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

    No mention of obeying the law.

    So you think there will be a Judgment Day 2. On Day 1, Jesus’ righteousness gets me in. On day 2, I need my obedience?

    Say hello to Wesleyanism, Mr. Standard Reformed Theologian.

    Like

  6. Uh oh, I read this in Resurrection and Redemption. Something about Union and final justification. It’d be nice if we could all just cut to the chase.

    Like

  7. And just a little before LC Q. 153 is:

    Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
    A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.

    This kinda puts our “necessary” or consequent obedience which evidences true faith in a context worth keeping in mind…

    Like

  8. Jeff, I’ve already done a little explaining and quoting. If the Old Life buzzsaw would like to give his view of the necessity of obedience or lack thereof, I’m all ears, but so far, all I hear is denial. If you think appealing to glorification muddies the waters, I’ll take solace from the fact that I’m in good company. And obviously, our present obedience is not a consequence of our glorification. (But in my view this is a rabbit trail.)

    Like

  9. @ DGH: Weelll, someone (I hope not David) is going to trot out the argument that diligent use includes obedience to the Law (WLC 160). So law-keeping turns out to be one of the means by which Christ communicates the benefits of his redemption. Ta-da!

    I have indeed encountered this position.

    Like

  10. David R., you keep insisting on the necessity of obedience even when folks here notice from church teaching the impossibility of perfect, perpetual obedience — which is what the law requires. Do you then qualify? No. You use it somehow to show something even though you don’t really say that that is.

    Meanwhile, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you still won’t back away.

    And now glorification?

    What A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y is the point your comments here?

    Like

  12. Jeff, and that person would then need to figure out why the Divines, third use and all, put their discussion of the Decalogue before the question on how to escape the wrath and curse of God.

    Like

  14. Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
    A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

    Q. 92. What did God first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
    A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.

    Q. 93. What is the moral law?
    A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

    Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law since the fall?
    A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.

    So obedience is our duty, yet our obedience, even as believers, doesn’t meet the perfection of righteousness required by the moral law. Yet before the judgment seat, God will ask for a perfect obedience if one is to receive the promise of life and avoid the curse of death. Who’s obedience will the believer be talking about and offering at that point? Perspective…

    Like

  15. David R: If you think appealing to glorification muddies the waters, I’ll take solace from the fact that I’m in good company. And obviously, our present obedience is not a consequence of our glorification. (But in my view this is a rabbit trail.)

    I’m glad that it is obvious to you (and me), but it is not obvious to all. You say “good company”, I say “mixed company.”

    It is commonplace that it is necessary to be careful with the word “necessary” as regards our works.

    I’m just asking you, in the current pastoral context of the PCA and OPC, to be explicit, early and often, about the sense in which you mean “necessary.”

    Can I please have an answer about Deut 28-30 now? Sorry to be impatient, but that strand of conversation was more fruitful than this.

    Like

  16. Meanwhile, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you still won’t back away.

    No, actually I simply cited some sources, including the LC.

    Like

  17. Jeff,

    Can I please have an answer about Deut 28-30 now? Sorry to be impatient, but that strand of conversation was more fruitful than this.

    I agree, and I appreciate the question. I’ll get to it but I’m still trying to figure out how to clarify.

    Like

  19. D.G.,

    David R., really, really lame. Words matter. Type, anti-type, republication are all ways of saying that something is not actually something else.

    Okay, so you’re saying a works principle “in some sense” means a works principle not at all. Is that right?

    Like

  20. David R., yes, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you merely wave at the Standards.

    Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man….

    Like

  22. DR, not A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y. It means that I am simply reading what Moses wrote: “if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statues which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.”

    That can’t mean eternal life. So it has to mean the land. Not that hard until you started in. And now glorification? Holy smokes.

    Like

  23. D.G.

    So according to your interpretation of that verse, Israel was, or wasn’t, under a covenant of works in some sense?

    Like

  24. Or maybe your view is tha the MC was a subservient covenant with a works principle for land? (But now we’ve come full circle once again….)

    Like

  31. Scott Clark, today, with a measured comment responding to a question on Kline and the view that he taught on republication:

    http://heidelblog.net/2014/08/seven-short-points-about-republication/#comment-439097

    Clark’s conclusion:
    If you look at the quotes from Hodge, Berkhof, and Shaw linked above in the Republication category one can see arguably some precedent for what MGK was saying. Hodge wrote:

    …the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, “Do this and live.”

    and Berkhof wrote:

    It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut. 28:1-14.

    Unless we’re willing to write out/off Berkhof and Hodge (and I’m not) then I don’t see how we can say that this approach is beyond the pale.

    Like

  32. David R., isn’t it the case that everyone is under a covenant of works? God requires perfect, perpetual and personal obedience to his moral law. That’s what SC 39 seems to teach. So yes, in one sense the Israelites and everyone is under the covenant of works unless they have trusted Christ who has fulfilled all the demands of the cofw.

    But in a temporal sense, to inherit the land, the Israelites were under a CofW arrangement, that the life might be long in the land the Lord was giving them.

    What is so threatening about this?

    Like

  33. David R., qualify. Qualify necessary in view of faith and Christ’s imputed righteousness. Qualify obedience in view of remaining corruption.

    What’s so hard about that?

    Like

  35. “It is a wonderful read, and comments greatly on the the discussions of this posting.”

    Semper channels blog spam. (three of my words could be nouns or could be verbs)

    Like

  36. Gaffin—- where Calvin brings in the proposition, “faith without works justifies”- he says …although this needs prudence and sound interpretation. For this proposition that faith without works justifies is true, yet false … true, yet false… according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition that faith without works justifies by itself is false. Because faith without works is void. But if the clause, “without works,” is joined with the word, “justifies,” the proposition will be true. Therefore faith cannot justify when it is without works because it is dead and a mere fiction. Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from its heat…. Notice what Calvin says. It needs prudence and sound interpretation. It is true yet false. Now there is a paradox. True yet false, depending on the way it is read.

    Gaffin: “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…however, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p 110 , By Faith not by Sight

    Like

  37. Gaffin, lectures on Romans, on 2:13:—-As that judgement decides, in its way, we’re going to wanna (sic) qualify that deciding, but as it decides the ultimate outcome for all believers and for all humanity, believers as well as unbelievers. That is, death or life. It’s a life and death situation that’s in view here. Further, this ultimate judgement has as its criterion or standard, brought into view here, the criterion for that judgement is works, good works. The doing of the law, as that is the criterion for all human beings, again, believers as well as unbelievers. In fact, in the case of the believer a positive outcome is in view and that positive outcome is explicitly said to be justification. So, again the point on the one side of the passage is that eternal life… depends on and follows from a future justification according to works. Eternal life follows upon a future justification by doing the law.

    Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p 38—From this perceptive, the antithesis between law and gospel is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not be virtue of creation but as a consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer

    Like

  38. David R., qualify. Qualify necessary in view of faith and Christ’s imputed righteousness. Qualify obedience in view of remaining corruption.

    What if I say I affirm everything in WCF 11 and 13? But it really wouldn’t matter because you’d just conclude I must be a closet repub.

    Like

  39. David R: What if I say I affirm everything in WCF 11 and 13?

    Doesn’t work for me. Not because I don’t believe you – I do! – but because the issue is not “what you believe” but “how we explain this to congregations.”

    And I guarantee that a congregation that hears “works are necessary for our salvation” will take it in directions you do not intend…

    But it really wouldn’t matter because you’d just conclude I must be a closet repub.

    Technically that was me being Wamba the Witless.

    Like

  42. Doesn’t work for me. Not because I don’t believe you – I do! – but because the issue is not “what you believe” but “how we explain this to congregations.”

    Then if you don’t mind, let’s just skip it and get back to repub. I hadn’t planned on the detour….

    Like

  44. David,
    I think Jeff’s question is pertinent and is very much part of the repub discussion. Could you venture some thoughts as to his question? I think it would help unpack how you see this issue playing out pastorally, i.e. where the rubber meets the road. Only a request.

    Like

  45. Jeff,

    I can attempt a more elaborate answer if it might be helpful, but for right now, here are some thoughts:

    Based on your statement that Deut 28-30 presents the demands and sanctions of the CoW,

    (1) Do you believe that Deut 28-30 is part of the gracious substance or of the legal cloak?

    Legal cloak.

    (2) Does Deut 28 promise land retention or eternal life, or both in different ways?

    On the face of it, it promises land retention. But land retention is merely an accident of the covenant by which the substantial promise of eternal life is conveyed, typically and sacramentally. I view this as analogous to OT passages that typologically represent the condition of the covenant, for example, Leviticus 4:20: “And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.” On the face of it, the promise is made there that forgiveness of sins will be granted on the grounds of a sacrifice being offered. And yet the writer to the Hebrews tells us that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (10:4) and that forgiveness only comes through Christ’s offering of Himself once for all (10:10. I don’t think that most of us would want to say that the sacrifices actually merit anything (though I think Todd might dissent).

    So I think that just as with the condition of the covenant, the type means nothing apart from what it signifies, so it is with the promise of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28-30 offers the promise of land inheritance. And passages like Joshua 21:43-45 appear to indicate that God’s promises were all fulfilled with the initial conquest under Joshua. And yet Hebrews includes even David, who had been given rest from his enemies on every side (2 Samuel 7:1), among those who “received not the promise (11:39)” and who “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly” (11:16).

    So to answer your question, I think the substance of the promise was eternal life. And I think this for precisely the same reason that I think the substance of the condition wasn’t sacrifices, but rather was Christ’s active and passive obedience.

    (3) How does relative obedience as a requirement for land retention figure in here? Does Deut 28-30 taken as a whole require strict obedience or relative?

    I would say it requires strict obedience, as that is always what the law requires, rendered either in their own persons (which of course is impossible) or in that of the Mediator (Christ, that is, not Moses….).

    Like

  46. “I don’t think that most of us would want to say that the sacrifices actually merit anything (though I think Todd might dissent).”

    No, I don’t dissent, that has actually been my point, they do not actually merit anything. Now apply that same principle to the Israelites and Deut. 28.

    Nice to see you dealing with the Scriptures though.

    Like

  47. Jack, I believe the last question Jeff asked was regarding Deuteronomy 28-30, so I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. But if you’re asking how I understand conditions in the covenant of grace, or how I think we should teach these things to congregations, well, I’m not a pastor, but I don’t know if I can think of anything that I’ve personally found more pastorally helpful than Calvin’s Institutes. (I cited some stuff earlier.)

    Like

  50. David R: Thanks.

    I would agree with you on (1).

    (2) is an interesting and intriguing take.

    It does raise a question about the difference between corporate and individual salvation. Given that the ten tribes were exiled corporately pretty much forever, and the two southern were exiled for 70 years, how does the outward sign line up with the salvation of individual believers such as Daniel?

    That is, given that he was saved and yet was removed forcibly from the land, it would seem that he was placed in an impossible position: treated as an unbeliever (excommunicated) with regard to the cult, yet in point of fact a believer and actually in God’s favor, even outwardly.

    That’s not an argument against your position, but it does call for clarification: Does national retention or exile say something sacramentally about the salvation of individual Israelites? Or does it rather point to the meaning of salvation in the manner that baptism does?

    DR: (3) I would say it requires strict obedience, as that is always what the law requires, rendered either in their own persons (which of course is impossible) or in that of the Mediator (Christ, that is, not Moses….).

    OK, strict obedience makes sense in light of Deut 28.13 – 15. Connecting some dots, you might say that the requirement was absolute, but for the sake of Christ, God did not enforce the full requirements?

    This does raise a question: Why does God attribute his forbearance to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob rather than to Christ?

    But I do want to understand what you meant then by this: National Israel’s relative obedience was “the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition” of retaining the typological inheritance of Canaan.

    Are there two things going on here: strict obedience for eternal life, relative for land retention? Or do you have something else in mind?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.