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.
Old Life 
David R., answer demander heal thyself.
LikeLike
Thanks Jack ~ for the post ‘on whose works’…..
LikeLike
D.G., we’re not going to get an answer from you? Surprise.
LikeLike
D.R., all obedience, all the time.
LikeLike
D.G, since you’re in an answering mood (sort of), what do you think of the Francis Roberts quote? Do you think it “allow[s] Christians to think that law-keeping does not contribute to their salvation?”
LikeLike
@ David R:
Based on our agreements so far, I would like to put forward a thesis and get your comments.
(1) The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation)
Warrant:
(a) The land sanctions were a part of the legal cloak of the Mosaic Covenant. That cloak was not operative from Adam to Moses, and even if it is operative “in some sense” for the NT visible church, per Hodge, the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers do not generally fall within its scope.
Thus, the land sanctions cannot be of the same kind as the blessings and disciplines of believers.
(b) The land sanctions, being a part of the legal cloak, had two purposes: To expose sin, and to drive to Christ. That is, because the nation was driven out for unfaithfulness, it showed to them the need for a Savior in a justifying sense. The blessings and disciplines received by believers do not have such an end in view, and are therefore different in kind from the land sanctions.
It was never the intent of God that the Deuteronomic sanctions would be fulfilled. Rather, his intent was pedagogical (Gal 4). It is by contrast the express intent of God that blessings to believers will carry forward into eternity.
(c) The land sanctions applied to all within the nation indiscriminately. The entire nation was exiled; the entire nation was restored; the entire nation was destroyed (speaking here of the theocracy, the object of those sanctions). Both believers and unbelievers within the nation partook of the blessings and curses.
By contrast, when good works of believers are rewarded, they are rewarded because they are in Christ by faith (WCF 16.6 and esp 16.7), while the “good works” of unbelievers do not proceed from faith and cannot be rewarded.
(d) The rewards given to believers are given on the basis of good works whose merit is found entirely in Christ on the ground of justification, of imputed righteousness. The disciplines that fall to believers are given on the basis of sonship through faith (Heb 12.4 – 13), for the purpose of restoration and strengthening. In all cases, whether reward or discipline, justification through faith is the ground.
By contrast, the sanctions announced in Deut 28, being a part of the legal cloak, are operating under an accidental merit principle. The only grace seen is patience on the part of God from exacting the strict standard, and in delaying the judgment that fell upon Israel until the full measure of its unbelief was manifest. This grace in delaying judgment was “for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” — and possibly typologically, “for the sake of the seed of Abraham.” And the purpose of the delay was the preservation of the remnant, and the purpose of the judgment, when it finally fell, was destruction.
For these reasons, we must reject the notion that the land sanctions are “just like” the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers today. Their aim was different (teaching v sonship); their end was different (failure v glorification); their mechanism was different (accidental merit v imputed righteousness).
There is an analogy between the two, of course. We understand from the Israelites who were “baptized in the cloud” that not all who are within the church necessarily stand. We understand from the fifth commandment that God is pleased to reward those who honor father and mother.
But we must not overlook the meritorious character of the land sanctions, belonging as they do to the legal cloak, and confuse them with the rewards given to believers on the ground of imputed righteousness.
Now to anticipate some objections.
Obj: In order for the Israelites to have fulfilled the land sanctions, they would have to have received God’s blessings by faith. Likewise, the blessings we receive must be received by faith. This shows that the land sanctions are of the same kind as the blessings to believers.
Reply: It is hypothetically true that the Israelites would have to obtained blessings by faith (and indeed, by being in Christ). But they did not, and it was never God’s intent that the nation would succeed under Moses. A better covenant was planned from the beginning.
So it is no objection to argue that if circumstances were entirely different, then the mechanism of receiving blessing would have been entirely different as well. They were not, and it was not.
As it stands, Deut 28 is clear that reward was grounded in antecedent obedience. And as all parties recognize, this passage is located within the legal cloak and is therefore operating under a merit principle belonging to the accidents of the covenant.
Obj: God’s grace in withholding and delaying judgment shows that Deut 28 was operating under a principle of grace and not merit.
Reply: The grace of being in Christ results in a complete transfer of judgment and imputation of righteousness. No judgment remains for those in Christ. By contrast, a withholding of judgment is not possible for those in Christ, save for those externally attached and who remain under the covenant of works and are still alive to the Law per Rom 7.
And this simply proves the point: if judgment is delayed but not rescinded, this shows that one is still under a works principle.
Obj: The punishment that eventually falls upon Israel is for their unbelief, and not because they failed to merit.
Reply: This objection wrongly attributes a genuine fact as a spurious cause. It is quite true that branches broken off were broken off for unbelief (Rom 11).
But for the theocracy as a whole, it was judged because it sinned. The theocracy is not the sum of its members, for if it were, then God would indefinitely withhold judgment as long as “ten righteous men remained.” (argument from lesser to greater: if for Sodom, then how much more for Israel?). The theocracy was a nation that stood or fell together, and when it ultimately falls (70 AD), its destruction is total.
Further, as we know, all those who are not of faith are judged by the law for the wickedness of their deeds — that is, they fall under the merit principle of the CoW.
So the true cause of “failure to obtain” is unbelief, but the true cause of judgment is unrighteousness judged by the moral law.
Obj: Excommunication is still operative for the NT church. This shows that temporal judgments still occur in the external economy of the church.
Reply: It is true that excommunication operates visibly within the external economy of the church, but excommunication is not a temporal discipline per se with land or health or success attached. It is rather of a spiritual nature, declaring the excommunicant to be outside the church as far as the eye can see.
Obj: Proverbs teaches that wisdom and folly carry a reward in all dispensations.
Reply: True, but those consequences fall to all men equally and thus are a part of the common grace economy.
LikeLike
David R., it was too long. Plus I have Paul.
I do know that “obedience is required” isn’t that helpful unless Zrim is saying it.
LikeLike
Sean,
To follow-up then on the covenant of works, can you describe where at Sinai God makes a covenant with Israel requiring perfect obedience and where he promises eternal life as a reward for that obedience?
Perhaps within the answer you could address why the blood of the covenant (Ex. 24: 1-10) is sprinkled on the people by Moses signifying the washing/cleansing of sins.
Thank you,
B
LikeLike
B, just to stay on the biblicist path, we would turn to the NT to interpret the OT. So, on that score, Gal 3 & 4, Rom 4, Rom 9 and Heb 10, should be more than adequate to explain Paul’s understanding of those covenants much better than my attempts. Just for a headstart, in more than one of those passages lev 18:5 is used by Paul to highlight the animating principle of the Siniatic covenant. So, maybe more could be said, but at least we DO know how Paul said it.
LikeLike
But, Darryl, I make exceptions for driving skyjacks–dirty pigs can’t tell me what’s what…
LikeLike
Galatians 3:10-13 teaches that Christ died by the law to save Christians.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall LIVE by faith.” (Habbakuk 2:4)
12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall LIVE by them.” (Leviticus 18:5)
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Deuteronomy 21:23)
14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith
If “covenant conditionality” notices here that “the legal adoption” is before the giving of the Spirit, it can still insist that staying adopted (the not yet aspect of adoption) is conditioned on our being transformed by the Spirit..
Galatians 2:21 for IF righteousness were through (our keeping) the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:18 For IF the inheritance comes by (our keeping) the law, it no longer comes by promise
Galatians 3:21 For IF a law had been given that could give life , then righteousness would indeed be by (our keeping) the law.
A “pastoral way” to get smoothly past this Galatians text is to say that God loves everybody and that Christ has done something to make an offer of love to everybody. And then you wait five seconds, and then the fine print— except we do need to do something and keep doing something to accept the conditions, so that we will be changed. Christ has changed everything, yes, but five seconds later, it does not work unless we change enough and keep doing so….Because in the end it’s not “ENTIRELY” about what Christ did, or even about what we have done yesterday, but about what we have done lately. And tomorrow…
LikeLike
Sean,
I agree to a large extent. If the Israelites looked at Sinai as a Covenant of Works (CoW) they were hopeless. If instead they viewed it as an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace and the manner in which they could bring glory to the God who redeemed them from bondage (Exodus 20:1), than their trust was in Jesus Christ alone and they were not in bondage to the law.
The New Testament texts, Galatians as the primary example, teach us that Sinai as a Covenant of Works was exactly the opposite purpose of Sinai. The moral law was good, the Jews had distorted it and made it into a Covenant of Works. Sinai was never meant to be a Republication of the Covenant of Works and any way of looking at it that way was a distortion of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Galatians) – the same gospel in Exodus as in Galatians.
It seems to me that viewing Sinai as a republication of Cov. of Works in Exodus is more closely a republication of Dispensational teaching. Similar, in that God institutes two methods of salvation. Can you help me understand how a view of Sinai as republication of CoW is not a republication of Dispensationalism?
Thank you for the interaction Sean,
B
LikeLike
Thanks, B. I don’t buy the misunderstood/misuse interpretation. It’s generally born of prior commitments to continuity, graciousness in the law, and faulty views of merit and justice and therefore bypasses the polarity that Paul describes in Galatians. As someone more astute than I has said, maybe Paul could’ve said more about the relationship but let’s not do away with what he has said. So, as far as dispensationalism, I don’t believe the OT saints were saved in a way different than the NT saints and that being by faith in Christ alone. I also believe Christ has torn down and done away with the ethnic distinction, as regards salvation, between Jew and gentile. I’m a bi-covenantalist on this score and comfortable with the legitimate discontinuity.
LikeLike
B, if you’re looking for COG continuity with the NC, the line is from Abraham to the NC and the MC line while not gracious as we’re using it, is still evangelical/pedagogical
LikeLike
It was necessary for Jesus to be born under the law. If the law was grace it seems there was not much point in Jesus dying under it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your work on the last comment. I would be happy to go through it point by point, but wanted to make a few quick comments up front:
1. There is a good amount I agree with in your argument, and that agreement I think is mostly because we both agree that the OT temporal sanctions were typological and that types don’t continue into the NT.
2. I do think there is a basic problem with your argument, and this is partly my fault. You had asked me earlier how I interpret the temporal sanctions and my response was “legal cloak,” but now upon further reflection I think I may need to revise that somewhat. The legal cloak restates the CoW, but doesn’t account for typology, which I think is an additional feature of the MC. So your argument, or parts of it, may need revision on that account (more details on this in #3 and #4).
3. Elaborating on #2, it seems to me that as we look at the big picture of the Mosaic covenant, we need to account for three basic features: (1) a typological intrusion of heavenly realities designed to reveal (a) the reward of eternal life promised to the elect, (b) the exclusion and damnation of the reprobate, and (c) the connection between holiness and blessedness in the consummate state, (2) a pedagogical restatement of the demands of the covenant of works, i.e., perfect and personal obedience, designed to drive sinners to Christ as well as reveal the legal condition to be fulfilled by Christ as Mediator/second Adam, and (3) the types and ordinances of the ceremonial law, designed to prefigure Christ and His benefits and thereby administer the covenant of grace.
4. So I think a problem with your argument surfaces when we observe that, in accordance with the typological feature I referenced just above, the requirement for Israel to remain in the land was not the perfect obedience required in the CoW, but rather general corporate obedience (we can even say “evangelical” obedience). Hence, it was not an impossible condition for them to meet (contrary to the “legal cloak”), nor (contrary to your argument) was it even a condition that they never actually met (though I agree that generally, and increasingly, apostasy was the rule).
5. Of course the big question under debate has to do with whether #4 (just above) constitutes a meritorious condition or not.
6. I am wondering about your reason for proposing this thesis. I realize that it touches on some of our past discussion, but I am wondering what you believe it would accomplish if you were able to prove it. For example, do you believe it would prove that the repub position is correct? (Personally, I think that it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue–which is simply the question of the compatibility of a works principle with the covenant of grace.)
7. Another problem with your main thesis: You propose that “The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation).” However, those land sanctions led directly to the temporal experiences of OT believers, and (as I’ve pointed out) those OT sanctions are, in the NT, connected directly with the suffering/cross borne by NT believers (for example, Paul’s citation of Psalm 44:22 in Romans 8:36). Did you deal with this question?
Again, these are a few quick thoughts and I realize this is just scratching the surface of what you’ve written, but I thought I needed to make a few observations, and I also didn’t want to wait forever (until I had a more thorough answer) before responding. I’ll read through your piece again and comment further as needed, and if you’d like me to interact with anything specific, just let me know. In the meantime, I am of course interested in your comments on what I’ve said here.
LikeLike
Sean,
Again, thank you for the interaction, I appreciate it the dialogue we are having.
To go between Exodus 24 and blood of the covenant being sprinkled on the people and of course looking forward to Christ’s own blood being shed and so clearly articulated in Hebrews, how can we view the Mosaic Covenant out of the line of the Abrahamic Covenant? The blood of the animals is sprinkled on the people in Exodus 24 signifying the payment of their sins by another, even Christ, to whom Moses looked forward too (Hebrews 11:23-29) even as did Abraham (John 8:56).
It seems to me in the Republication framework, one would have to argue that Moses and the Israelites saw the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works when Scripture, especially the NT, seems to me to argue the opposite. There were certainly temporal earthly blessings associated with the Theocracy established arguably at Sinai but the believers looked for a better country, that is a heavenly country. Their ultimate hope was never the immediate land which had the possibility to be temporary…it was something far greater…even eternal life with Christ.
God Himself at Sinai defines the relationship and it is the same relationship as with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” The relationship is established by God, now listen to the Lord God and fear Him. …”Thou Shalt have no other gods before Me; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…” etc
Every time I read through Exodus and Galatians, and Hebrews, and Acts, etc… the covenant of grace overflows throughout the Sinai Covenant. My conviction of the graciousness of the Sinai Covenant is not simply because the WCF says it is, I believe it because Scripture teaches it throughout and I believe the WCF clearly summarizes this in Chapter 7.
Can you help me to understand in light of the Scripture mentioned, how the republication framework handles the establishment of the relationship at Sinai by God Himself and the sprinkled blood upon the people outside of the Covenant of Grace so well articulated with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Thank you,
B
ps. No need to disclose this if you do not want to, but would you mind telling me which denomination you are a member in? I am in the OPC. Thanks again.
LikeLike
B, you’ll have to understand I’m not going to do dissertation work in a combox, particularly when my betters have done this elsewhere. You can pick up Kingdom Prologue, or read T David Gordon or read Todd Bordow(he prolly has something at Kingdom Kompilations) or Lee Irons or Heidelblog or West West and all the others I left out. What I was trying to shorthand before, was an answer to your question. The MC(mosaic covenant) served an evangelical/pedagogical purpose to the COG. Or as Paul would say, it was our tutor, taskmaster, prison guard. It’s roll was to prepare us in conscience(guilt) and typically(sacrifices, theocracy, kings, ceremonial) for the reality of the incarnate Christ. This is evangelical and pedagogical work. Again this is why, of ALL the things Paul could’ve said, he uses the MC as a foil to bring out the graciousness of the NC as contrasted with the works principle inherent in the MC-Lev. 18:5. We can complain that he should’ve said more or should’ve dealt with every other possible OT text bearing on the nature of the Abrahamic and Siniatic BUT this is what he chose to highlight. I’m eager to maintain his dichotomy. I’m in the PCA, taking names and brooding.
LikeLike
@ B: Here’s one way to think about it.
Take a believing Israelite living under David. This Israelite sins.
With regard to actual forgiveness, he is justified by faith. Yet he still owes a sacrifice. Why? Because as a member of the nation, he is under the law. The sacrifice does not of itself provide forgiveness, but pictures it. Yet unlike in the NT, where the sacraments are administered from the church to the man at no cost, here the man is required by threat of law and cutting off from his people, to provide his own sacrifice at a cost to himself.
So we have two layers: actual salvation by grace, typological pictures of salvation by law.
Does that help?
LikeLike
B,
Here are a couple of my sermons from Galatians if they help:
http://kingdomkompilations.com/bible-studies/galatians-3-the-law-is-not-of-faith/
http://kingdomkompilations.com/bible-studies/understanding-the-two-covenants-of-gal-421-31/
LikeLike
Jeff, to be fair to you, I really need to revise my answers to the questions you had asked me earlier regarding Deuteronomy 28-30. I’ll try to do that.
LikeLike
B, where is the threat to Abraham if he fails to do everything God has commanded (and what did God command Abraham to do other than circumcise his yute and slaves)? Where is the threat in Romans 8, no separation, no condemnation? Where does Paul say, “do this or else”? And where does God promise Israel through Moses that his burden is light?
LikeLike
Sean and DGH,
I appreciate DGH’s call for Scripture over theologians and I appreciate Sean bringing Paul into the picture early on as this is a significant angle.
I am persuaded, with others, that Galatians is speaking of two things: 1) Primarily, the ceremonial laws as opposed to the moral law (10 commandments) given with the Sinai Covenant in Exodus 20-24; and 2) a distortion of the Sinai Covenant that would change it into a republication of the covenant of works as opposed to its proper place in the unfolding of the covenant of grace.
Galatians aside, Paul summarizes the Sinai Covenant in Titus 2: 11-15. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”
Titus 2 seems to me to be a republication of Mt. Sinai in NT terminology. Isn’t Titus 2: 11-15 what is going on in Exodus 20-24? The grace of God appeared to the Israelites in redeeming them from Egypt and with that came teaching (10 commandments) how to live, always looking forward to that blessed hope of Jesus Christ who would give Himself for them that He might redeem them from all iniquity and make for Himself a peculiar people zealous for good works. [Good works because they have been redeemed not in order to be redeemed]
The unity of the OT and NT, Moses and Christ, seems so apparent from passages like this. Can you help me understand why someone in the pew should view Sinai differently than Titus 2?
Thank you both again. Also, if you sense offense in my writing let me know, I am trying to be fair in the dialogue.
Have a good evening,
B
P.S. Todd, I was going to ask for a republication sermon so I will try to listen to one or both in the . My work schedule is rather hectic right now, but I will try to do so. Are futurethey available in script form as well as audio?
LikeLike
Todd, question answered, I see they are in script format so I will try and read. Thank you.
LikeLike
B – The unity of the OT and NT, Moses and Christ, seems so apparent from passages like this. Can you help me understand why someone in the pew should view Sinai differently than Titus 2?
Erik – Israel disobeyed, so they did not get to stay in the land.
If you disobey, do you not get to go to heaven?
If you say that Israel, really, really disobeyed but you only slightly disobey, are you not being lenient with yourself? How do you know your standard of judgment is correct?
It seems to me that this is how Roman Catholics think.
For them, Israel not getting the land is not all that troubling since they themselves are probably looking at a lengthy sentence to Purgatory. They don’t “get the land” either — at least not without enduring considerable punishment for their earthly sins first.
LikeLike
B,
Was the Spirit poured out on Sinai to enable them to obey the Mosaic commandments? Do you see a difference between Sinai and Pentecost? That is the point of II Cor 3 – the letter (Mosaic Law) kills, the Spirit, given through the gospel, gives life. If Sinai is grace why does Paul call it the ministry of death?
LikeLike
Todd, if you eliminate some letters from ministryofdeath you get mstrfath or Mister Faith.
Decoder ring.
LikeLike
B, couple of quick things. Titus? Just because there are indicatives in the NT doesn’t then make it Siniatic in nature. Galatians is just tough to sidestep, the law is NOT of faith. That’s a statement speaking to nature, innateness, role, purpose, function, essence. Then he doubles down with lev. 18:5, then he cordons off the whole administration with a start and end date; 430 years later until Christ comes. Then he juxtaposes law and flesh with spirit and faith. Then ties inheritance of Abraham with faith NOT law. And the law is what? NOT of faith. Then just in case we missed all that, he goes Hagar and Sarah on it and tells you to throw out the slave woman and her son. Now, I’m not the only reader in the world but I’m pretty good at nuance and gist and I’m even better when the teacher goes; “look here, dummy. This is what I mean.”
B, on the other issue you brought up, you’re not offensive, necessarily, but you’re at least a little leading.
LikeLike
Indicatives mean imperatives in my world.
LikeLike
@ David R: Thanks, I will await your revisions while I await the copy of Turretin in the mail.
Food for thought as you ponder. These questions don’t need point-for-point answers, but they give you a sneak preview of coming objections.
DR: The legal cloak restates the CoW, but doesn’t account for typology, which I think is an additional feature of the MC.
What if the legal cloak does account for typology? The sacrifices were certainly a huge part of that legal cloak, and they were typological to boot. What if the entire legal cloak, or even much of it, taught by means of type? Isn’t that Vos’s insight?
DR: we observe that, in accordance with the typological feature I referenced just above, the requirement for Israel to remain in the land was not the perfect obedience required in the CoW, but rather general corporate obedience (we can even say “evangelical” obedience). Hence, it was not an impossible condition for them to meet (contrary to the “legal cloak”), nor (contrary to your argument) was it even a condition that they never actually met (though I agree that generally, and increasingly, apostasy was the rule).
* What of Josh 24?
* Is it really true that Israel ever, once, met the condition of keeping all the Law and turning neither to the left nor to the right? That is the standard articulated in Deut 28. Perhaps there is a different explanation for their staying in the land than that they met the standard in a general corporate sense.
* Evangelical obedience requires actual justification, for the works of evangelical obedience require the merit of Christ to cover their imperfections, and the work of the Spirit to be produced in the first place. Given that not all Israelites were justified, in what sense possible?
And if the argument will be that Deut 28 was given to force them to first recognize their need for justification, then aren’t we back in legal cloak territory, with Deut 28 acting pedagogically?
But even more, is it not clear that God’s purpose was never that they be able to retain Canaan, since it was only a shadow of the heavenly city?
DR: You propose that “The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation).” However, those land sanctions led directly to the temporal experiences of OT believers…
Yes and No. And that was the point of bringing up Daniel: his experiences in Babylon showed on the one hand, being under discipline despite his faith; and on the other, being blessed for his faith apart from the general nation under exile.
So it is true that national failure led to temporal consequences for Israelites, but those temporal consequences were poorly correlated with the faith of the individual Israelites. Everyone was exiled, even the remnant. Everyone was brought back, even the unbelievers. And indeed, as they are brought back, the promise is made: It is time for a new covenant, not like this one.
You asked, I am wondering about your reason for proposing this thesis.
I have several, and one is to put the finger on the sore spot: There is evidently a real difference between the way God treats the nation as a theocratic unit, and the way that God treats individual Israelites. Rewards for evangelical obedience are given to justified individuals; the sanctions in Deut 28 are for the nation.
To make the two strictly equal is a category error.
Again, I don’t need responses to all of these. I just wanted to give some grist for the mill.
LikeLike
Todd and Sean,
Thank you for the responses.
I am a little confused by your responses as they seem to suggest more at Sinai than I am arguing. I am not arguing an equivalent to Pentecost or an equivalent to the New Covenant. The OC and NC operated under different administrations, no question there, but they were one covenant of grace. The NC is clearer, the antitype has come, no doubt about it. Why would the OC have to be equivalent to the NC in order for Sinai to be an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace instead of a republication of the Covenant of Works?
<p
It is interesting to me that there seems to be a suggestion that Galatians is so clearly in favor of Republication, yet it seems to be a newer interpretation that suggests Galatians is talking about the view of Sinai as presented by God in Exodus. In Exodus, the law is not given at Sinai for salvation. Is the law against the promises of God? God forbid! (Galatians 3:21). The law sweetly complied with the covenant of grace in Exodus as it does when properly understood today. WCF 7. Galatians is condemning the false view of the law, that is salvation can come through our works of the law. This was never the case with Sinai as presented by God in Exodus. Paul goes through OT history and shows that the law was never intended to save. But, the Jews in their sin and rebellion against the grace of God had made the law to be an ends of salvation which it was never intended to do nor was it able to do. The Galatian Jews had said that justification came by works of the law. This was a lie in the NC and the OC. Galatians 3:11 is a quote from the OT. The Just Shall Live by Faith! OC and NC…no difference there.
God is still our God, the God of true Israel. As our God, He still calls his people who He has redeemed to serve Him and Glorify Him. Again, I will come back to Titus 2.
Perhaps there needs to be a greater discussion on Galatians than on Sinai. If Galatians is speaking of Sinai as presented by God in Exodus, Republication would make a lot more sense to me.
Instead, I would argue, that God in Galatians is condemning the false view of Sinai and the Mosaic Covenant that the Galatian Jews had made up and were teaching. God through Paul was not opposing the actual gracious unfolding of the Covenant of Grace that God had presented some 1500+ years before with Moses at Sinai. Otherwise, God would be contradicting Himself. God through Paul is reminding the Galatians and us today of the actual gracious Sinai Covenant and warning against this false view of the Jews that made Sinai into righteousness through works.
Thanks again for the dialogue. I will probably stop here as readers can see the positions a bit better and I am not sure how much further we can get in blogs. Far better in person and in Presbyteries/GAs.
B
LikeLike
B, your responses do point to one thing that Repubs need to make clear: “Republication of the Covenant of Works” does not and cannot (should not) mean that God was once again giving the law as a means for salvation.
I can see from what you have written that this is your concern, and you can rest easy on that score. No-one is saying, and everyone would repudiate, the idea that God gave the Law to Moses in order to re-establish the covenant of works for the Jews.
LikeLike
B, I see nothing in Paul comparable to this:
Is the gospel conditional? No. Is Moses? Everywhere.
LikeLike
Jeff, but B also needs to make clear, when he asserts that the law sweetly complies with grace, that he is not saying faith + works = salvation.
It’s the repubs who are clear on that one. It’s the critics of repub who are not (which may explain the book you and David R. are writing).
LikeLike
DGH,
I believe in almost every post I have made clear that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. To establish that further and reaching back to the Reformers, Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone found in the Scripture alone all to the glory of God alone. The just shall live by faith in the OC/OT and NC/NT.
Now that we have established salvation, I would point you to Titus 2: 11-15 and Ephesians 2: 8-10, for how the Christian should live after salvation. Christ Himself and Christ through Paul spend so much time speaking of life after effectual calling/regeneration, but when we talk about that life afterwards the question arises: prove this is not faith + works. God, in His Word answers that question well.
I think it is actually this result of the gospel that leads many to scratch their heads with the Republication Paradigm. It sometimes sounds like, and please take this the way it is, I am not accusing, just expressing what it sounds like, that Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 2: 12-15 and similar passages do not exist in the Republication framework. I understand the constant worry about faith + works = salvation, but neither Paul nor I are making such a heretical claim. There are many who teach Roman theology as a new perspective in the protestant camp, but that is not happening here and I think that is clear.
LikeLike
DGH,
Does God require anything in order for you and I to escape His wrath and curse due to us for sin?
B
LikeLike
Recent Aquila Report article by Karlberg on [in defense of] republication controversy:
http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/
LikeLike
Wow, Karlberg is blunt.
I don’t agree that RTS is anti-repub, though. I learned repub first from Muether and then again from Jeff Jue at RTS.
LikeLike
B – God through Paul was not opposing the actual gracious unfolding of the Covenant of Grace that God had presented some 1500+ years before with Moses at Sinai.
Erik – If Sinai was an “actual gracious unfolding”, why was Israel kicked out of the land? Because they lacked faith? Or because they lacked works?
What was particularly gracious about Sinai?
How is “do this and you will live” and “do this and you will die” gracious?
People who view law in this way completely overlook the penalties of death, cursing, and exile that are attached to it.
It becomes Sowers-esque pretty quickly.
LikeLike
“Wow, Karlberg is blunt.”
And the Pope is Catholic.
I do agree with Jeff, the RTS’s, as far as I have seen, do not seem to take a stand for or against – there is freedom to disagree, though I may be wrong…the same btw is true at WSC, where Bob Strimple, a follower of Murray, and a good friend and former tennis partner of this Klinean, taught for years.
LikeLike
The practical problem with this viewing of the Law as gracioius is that people start to grade themselves on a curve, make up legalistic rules to assist them in keeping them law, and learn how to paint a picture of themselves that looks good to others. Then everyone is shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that they’ve been messing around with the nanny or sleeping with multiple women in the congregation. Oops, maybe the law was a little more difficult to keep than we thought…
LikeLike
The other thing you get is Mark VDM, Kloosterman, and even R. Scott Clark on certain days being impressed with outward expressions of righteousness and moral uprightness in the broader culture, As in, “as long as everything looks relatively decent and no one of the same sex is getting married, God won’t curse us.” It’s the whole national Israel paradigm imported to the 21st Century U.S. If I went back far enough in the archives I could find Mark & Kloosterman talking about the value of outward compliance with the moral law — by pagans, even — without regards to the heart. It’s goofy.
LikeLike
“Christian Renewal” is the scorecard of how well the U.S and Canada are doing at kinda-sorta upholding the Law of God.
LikeLike
Kline’s going to have a hard time being a “disputant” in these OPC debates since he’s been dead since 2007…
LikeLike
B, it’s pretty straightforward. None of the Repubs I’ve read deny third use of the law, or imperatives or progressive sanctification. We struggle with outright denials of sola fide, missing the rather explicit explanation of the covenants by Paul, prior commitments to justice, continuity, and abiblical covenantal understandings that obscure bi-covenantalism(just to keep it simple). So, whether it’s explicit, like Shepherd, or logical presuppositions or commitments that put one on Shepherd’s course, we object. We’ve seen the show before and somehow have been stuck with front row seats for the same show, different actors, for years now.
LikeLike
Those who want to advocate for a mixing of (gracious — whatever that means) works with faith in order to receive salvation have some staunch competition from a fellow who lives in Rome and heads up a far bigger church than the OPC (as Jeremy Tate reminds us whenever he has the opportunity). The CREC is also several steps ahead of the OPC on this issue and is ready to receive her members if the OPC doesn’t come around quickly enough for those who want to work the steps but are not yet ready to go to Rome.
LikeLike
B, but what you don’t seem to understand is that Eph 2 and Titus 2 are a long way from the sound and character of Deut 26-28. It seems to me that Paul is commending obedience. I have no problem with that. But to draw parallels between the Israelites under Moses and Christians under Christ not only flattens the freedom of gospel and the bondage of the law, but makes the world safe for Shepherd.
So if you want to assert that salvation is by faith alone and not of works or obedience, then it does seem that you need to qualify the nature of NT obedience and not draw (as some do) parallels between Moses and Paul. And the solution to this is Paul himself who says the law is not of faith.
Repub is doing justice to Paul. He’s the guy, after all, who likens the law/Sinai to Hagar, not the repubs (on their own).
LikeLike
B, according to the SC what is required (faith, repentance, using the means of grace) is not obedience to the law. I don’t see how the catechism could be any clearer about this since the law is what is require of man, not to escape the wrath and curse of God.
LikeLike
Oh, don’t worry, I can handle the law/grace mix and get the proper balance of good conscience in my righteousness during progressive sanctification.
As for the rest of you… well….. i don’t think you are going to be smart/clever/witty enough to understand it as perfectly as I do.
LikeLike
DGH,
The limitations of conversations on blogs…you need to move towards the South so we have opportunities to talk in person. Greenville isn’t too far away from me 🙂
I agree with your answer completely. My question was not looking for the law as an answer, I was looking for the catechism answer.
You said at 6:20am “Is the gospel conditional? No.”
Just now you implied their are requirements to salvation: faith, repentance, means of grace. I want to use “conditions” carefully as we are talking about conditions that are free gifts of God but never-the-less God does require things and those things He wholly and entirely gives of His free grace. I just want to be clear on this.
I hear very often people say, “the CoG is not conditional.” I always ask what they mean by that. In the worst extremes I have had someone tell me that faith or repentance is not needed to be saved because grace is unconditional.
Election is unconditional. While grace is Irresistible, God does require His free gifts of Repentance, Faith, and Means of Grace to be had by the believer to escape the wrath and curse of God. The Spirit is the sole giver of those requirements and they are not earned or merited.
My question was only for clarification, thank you.
B
LikeLike