
As you may have noticed, I’ve been thinking about republication and the covenants a lot lately. I find the debate surrounding the doctrine of “Republication” to be very illuminating. There is a very helpful review of “The Law is Not of Faith” on Amazon. It clearly lays out the objections to viewing Sinai as a covenant of works in any way. Below is a quote that strikes at the heart of the issue, so far as I can tell (emphasis mine):
The second essential element of a covenant of works, or the application of a works-principle, is that the obedience be “perfect.” If it does not require perfect obedience, it is not a covenant of works, nor is it strictly and properly speaking, the application of a works principle. One author is quite explicit about the fact that the Sinaitic works-covenant or works-principle did not require perfect obedience. Speaking of the similarities and differences of the old and new covenant obedience, one author says this:
“The need for perfect obedience is there (as always) for gaining eschatological life. The need for grateful obedience (the so-called third use of the law) is still there and was there in the old covenant. But the demand for sincere obedience, relative obedience (albeit imperfect) which would showcase an appropriate measure of readable obedience before the surrounding nations, has passed.”
According to this writer, the Sinai covenant and the “works principle” associated with it, required only “sincere…relative obedience (albeit imperfect).” If this is the case, the author has, by definition, rejected the idea that strictly and properly speaking, a works principle or a covenant of works was republished at Sinai. But at the beginning of the essay, the author spoke of “the republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant.” We repeat: if it does not require perfect obedience, it is not a covenant of works. The requirement of perfect obedience is an essential element of such covenant, is it not?
Again, this author maintains that the unique obedience required at Sinai is simply sincere, imperfect obedience. Interestingly, this is exactly the way 17th century writers described the obedience required in the new covenant or covenant of grace. John Ball, writing at the time of the Westminster Assembly, expressed the Reformed consensus regarding the obedience required in the covenant of grace in this way:
“The Covenant of Grace calleth for perfection, accepteth SINCERITY, God in mercy pardoning the IMPERFECTIONS of our best performances…The faith that is lively to imbrace mercy is ever conjoyned with an unfained purpose to walke in all well pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, doth ever attend that faith, whereby we continually lay hold upon the promises of life (19-20).” The same basic issue is noted by another author on pg. 301, note 30.
The covenant of grace thus accepts sincere, imperfect obedience as part of the requirements of the covenant. In this, it stands in contrast to the covenant of works. But when this author describes the obedience required in the so-called Sinaitic works covenant (or works-principle) he describes it in exactly the same way. Is that not admitting that it is essentially the same as the obedience required in the covenant of grace?
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2I9SWHD34AA7B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Obedience a Condition or Blessing in the New Covenant?
The core of the objection, as I understand it, is that the New Covenant is conditional and requires obedience, albeit imperfect obedience, through faith. But is that true? Is the New Covenant conditional? Is our work, or even our faith, a conditional requirement of the New Covenant? Or is it a blessing of the New Covenant?
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Note what the Lord says. He does not say He will forgive their iniquity on the condition of faith. Furthermore, He does not say that faith is a requirement or condition for entering the New Covenant. What the Lord says is that regeneration is a blessing of being in the New Covenant. Thus faith and obedience, the result of regeneration, is a blessing of the New Covenant, not a condition. Faith and repentance are conditions of forgiveness, but both forgiveness and faith are blessings of the New Covenant. In so far as man is concerned, the New Covenant is unconditional. We do nothing to enter it and we can do nothing to leave it.
An essential aspect of the Old Covenant was that obedience was a requirement. This is clearly seen by the fact that they broke the covenant (v32 above) and that God divorced Himself from them. This is entirely different than the New Covenant. If we are to say that the principle of obedience required in the Old Covenant is the same as the obedience required in the New Covenant, then we must believe that the New Covenant is breakable dependent upon our obedience!
Outward Obedience
The reviewer quoted above makes another mistake, I believe, in his equating OC obedience with NC obedience. He believes that God accepted the imperfect obedience of Israel as long as it was done in faith. This means that Israelites could fall short of the covenant stipulations, but if they had faith, their shortcomings were ignored and Christ’s righteousness was seen in their stead. But that is not how the Old Covenant functioned.
“The need for perfect obedience is there (as always) for gaining eschatological life. The need for grateful obedience (the so-called third use of the law) is still there and was there in the old covenant. But the demand for sincere obedience, relative obedience (albeit imperfect) which would showcase an appropriate measure of readable obedience before the surrounding nations, has passed.”
(a quote from The Law is Not of Faith, quoted in the review)
What is the author talking about here? I don’t have the book, so I don’t know the context, but it seems clear to me he is referring to outward conformity to the law (note “showcase” and “readable”). He says that outward conformity to the law was an “appropriate measure of obedience.” But how can this be? When has outward conformity to the law ever been an “appropriate measure of obedience”?
Under the Mosaic Covenant, that’s when. But unto what end? Note the author clearly states that this outward obedience was not appropriate for “gaining eschatological life.” If gaining eschatological life was not the point, then what was the point? How about:
“that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.” Deut 4:40
” …he will bless your bread and your water and I will take sickness away from among you. None shall miscarry or be barren in your land.” Ex 23:25-26
“I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land…” Ex. 34:24
In other words, outward obedience was the requirement for temporal, typological blessings. (Which were the only blessings promised in the Mosaic Covenant). I believe that is why Paul can refer to the righteousness under the law and claim that he was blameless:
If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Phil. 3:4-6
Commenting on this, Calvin states:
To make the matter plainer, I observe, that there are two righteousnesses of the law. The one is spiritual–perfect love to God, and our neighbors: it is contained in doctrine, and had never an existence in the life of any man. The other is literal–such as appears in the view of men [i.e. "showcase" and "readable" above], while, in the mean time, hypocrisy reigns in the heart, and there is in the sight of God nothing but iniquity. Thus, the law has two aspects; the one has an eye to God, the other to men. Paul, then, was in the judgment of men holy, and free from all censure–a rare commendation, certainly, and almost unrivaled;
Note the emphasis on “the flesh” in the Philippians passage. This parallels Hebrews 9:13-14
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctifyfor the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify ourconscience from dead works to serve the living God.
This is important for understanding forgiveness under the Mosaic Covenant. This passage emphasizes a marked difference between the outward flesh and the inward conscience. The blessings and curses of the Mosaic Covenant were “fleshly.” Thus, the forgiveness achieved by the sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant were also “fleshly.” The blood of bulls and goats kept them in the land. The flesh of the Israelites were purified by the sprinkling of blood on their flesh. Faith was not required for this blood to be effectual. (However, the Israelites would not actually offer those sacrifices apart from faith because of man’s stiff-necked nature, thus bringing curses upon themselves).
But the blood of Christ is not sprinkled on our flesh. It is sprinkled on our hearts. It is inward. And that is what the Lord’s Supper communicates to us. We must drink the blood of Christ because it must purify our heart. And this is only possible through faith. And I would also add that this is why sprinkling the flesh with water is an inappropriate mode of baptism. It is not the flesh that must be sprinkled, but the heart, and it is the Lord’s Supper that pictures this, not baptism.
The Westminster Confession
The reviewer goes on to note:
Interestingly, many of these phrases drop out of the revision of the Westminster Confession known as the Savoy declaration. The latter was written by six men among the party of Independents. Interestingly, a great many of the Independents maintained that the Sinaitic covenant was not a covenant of grace, but rather a covenant of works or a subservient covenant (John Owen, Gillespie, Sydrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughs, etc.). Interestingly, many of these key phrases are dropped in the Savoy declaration. In the parallel passage to WCF 19:2 the Savoy declaration drops the words relating the fact that the law at Sinai was delivered as a perfect rule of righteousness. It rather reads “This law, so written in the heart, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall of man; and was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments.” By dropping the words “as such” they left room for those in their number who affirmed that Sinai was a republication of a covenant of works (or a subservient covenant).
Likewise, WCF 7:5-6 is significantly abbreviated in the Savoy declaration (the section that deals with the administration of the covenant of grace in the old and new testaments). The most striking absence is the phrase (found in WCF 7:6): “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” Apparently, the Independents behind the Savoy declaration felt that their views were unjustly excluded by the Westminster confession, and revised it accordingly. In our opinion, this is what the writers in this present volume should do as well. Instead, they cloud the issue by misreading the confession to fit their own view.
This is exactly how Owen felt. In his commentary on the book of Hebrews, he notes:
“wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended” (XXII, p.76).
In light of this, please consider the following quote from James Renihan, taken from his introduction to Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ
We have chosen to include John Owen’s comments on Hebrews 8:6-13 alongside Coxe’s work, for several important reasons. We know, of course, that Owen was a lifelong paedobaptist, and briefly defends that view in his other writings. We do not intend, in any way, to imply that Owen would have endorsed Coxe’s (or our) objections to the paedobaptist position. Nevertheless, it has seemed good to incorporate his views into this work. The reader will notice that Coxe, in the preface to his Discourse, indicates that he was preparing materials for a subsequent volume to be written on the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, but was “happily prevented” by the publication of Owen’s volume on Hebrews chapter 8. So far as the Baptist Nehemiah Coxe was concerned, John Owen’s work on this part of Hebrews clearly articulated the things that Coxe himself would have said (and he recognized that Owen said them better as well). This does not imply that Coxe endorsed every jot and tittle of Owen’s work, but simply indicates the massive agreement between the two. Owen, for his own part, exegetically demonstrates that the New Covenant is profoundly different from the Old-it is characteristically new. For Coxe (and confessional Baptists who agree with his theology; it must be remembered that he is the most likely candidate to have served as editor of the Second London Confession of 1677/1689), Owen’s emphasis on the newness of the New Covenant is a helpful step forward in the discussion.
http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=93
And with this in mind, we can see that the London Baptist Confession, along with Savoy, rejects the view of the Mosaic Covenant in the WCF. And also that it went beyond Savoy in it’s revisions in Ch. 7, removing 7:4, 5, & 6 (and moving 7:2 to Ch. 19:1). Note especially the removal in the LBC even of Savoy’s revised 7:5.
You can see these changes side by side in an excellent table here. Interesting to note is the addition of “eternal” before “life” in 7:3/2, as well as the complete addition of Ch. 20 in both Savoy and LBC.
*If I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything in this post, please do take the time to let me know. I’m just a Christian with my bible trying to make sense of it all.