The Upper Register

Gospel as New Law: The Error that Refuses to Die

Pelagius (early 5th century)

“The Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that ‘he left him free to make his own decisions’ (Sirach 15:14) and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him. Hence we read in the Book Deuteronomy also: ‘I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you may live’ (Deut 30:19)” (Letter to Demetrias [413] https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/1296.html).

“It is on this choice between two ways, on this freedom to choose either alternative, that the glory of the rational mind is based, it is in this that the whole honour of our nature consists, it is from this that its dignity is derived and all good men win others’ praise and their own reward.”

“When [human nature] had now become buried beneath an excess of vices and as if tainted with the rust of ignorance, the Lord applied the file of the law to it, and so, thoroughly polished by its frequent admonishments, it was enabled to recover its former brilliance.”

Aquinas:

“The Law of the Gospel which is called the New Law” (Summa Theologica I-II, Q106)

Justification is a movement or change from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice (Rom 4:5), which is a certain rectitude or order in the interior disposition of man (I-II, Q113, A1).

“This movement of faith is not perfect unless it is quickened by charity” (I-II, Q113, A4). “Faith formed by charity” (II-II, Q4, A3) “The merit of eternal life rests chiefly with charity” (I-II, Q114, A4).

The Council of Trent, Sixth Session (1547)

Justification is not the imputation of righteousness but an infusion of righteousness (a new habit of virtue) by the Spirit. As a result of this infusion of a new habit of virtue, we do good works. These works are so pleasing to God that we can be said “to have truly merited eternal life” (Article 16).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)

Par. 1965: “The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law.”

Par. 1966: “The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it.”

Par. 1970: “The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the ‘new commandment’ of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.”

The Remonstrants (1610)

“That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end.”

Richard Baxter

Aphorisms of Justification (1649) https://heidelblog.net/2018/02/richard-baxter-on-initial-and-final-justification-through-faith-and-works/

Thesis 70: “Faith in the largest sense, as it comprehends all the condition of the new covenant,” which includes faith, repentance, and obedience.

Thesis 71: “The sincere performance of the summary, great command of the Law is still naturally implied in the conditions of the Gospel, as of absolute indispensible necessity … But it is not commanded in the sense, and upon the terms, as under the first Covenant.”

Thesis 72: “As the Accepting of Christ for Lord, (which is the hearts subjection) is as essential a part of justifying faith, as the accepting of him for our Saviour: So consequently, sincere obedience, (which is the effect of the former,) has as much to do in justifying us before God, as affiance, (which is the fruit of the later.)”

Thesis 73: “Faith only justifies as it implies and includes all other parts of the condition of the new covenant … Those works [of the Gospel] do also justify as the secondary, less principal parts of the condition of the Covenant.”

Thesis 78: “Sincere obedience is without all doubt, a condition of our salvation: therefore also of our justification.”

“The Day of Judgement is not to try and judge Jesus Christ and his merits, but us: He will judge us himself by his new Law or Covenant” (Dictionary of Scottish Church History, pp. 449f).

Norman Shepherd

34 Theses on Justification (1978) http://hornes.org/theologia/norman-shepherd/the-34-theses

Thesis 11: “Justifying faith is obedient faith, that is, ‘faith working through love’ (Gal. 5:6), and therefore faith that yields obedience to the commands of Scripture.”

Thesis 18: “Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, but are as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; 2 Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full possession of eternal life.”

Thesis 19: “Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment.”

Thesis 20: “The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, ‘the doers of the Law will be justified,’ is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified.”

Thesis 22: “The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day.”

Thesis 23: “Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1 John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).”

Shepherd, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism (P&R, 2000)

“The obedience that leads to the fulfillment of the promise … is the expression of faith and trust in the Lord, not the expression of confidence in human effort” (p. 21).

The Mosaic covenant has been viewed by some theologians, like Charles Hodge, as a republication of the covenant of works (p. 25). But that is not correct according to Shepherd. The Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works but an administration of the covenant of grace (p. 27).

“Israel had to persevere in faith in order to inherit what was promised” (p. 33).

“The Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works, but a ‘covenant of love’” (p. 39).

“Like the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant has two parts, promise and obligation” (p. 39).

“The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith” (p. 39).

“Eternal life is an undeserved gift of grace; we enter into it by way of a living, active, and obedient faith ... The covenantal demand for faith, repentance, and obedience is simply the way in which the Lord leads us into the possession of these blessings” (pp. 51, 63).

Shepherd, “Justification by Faith in Pauline Theology,” in Backbone of the Bible, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin (Covenant Media Press, 2004)

“Justifying faith is not only a penitent faith but also an obedient faith. As faith and repentance are inseparably joined, so also repentance and obedience are inseparably joined” (p. 91).

“Justification comes by a penitent and obedient faith … Gospel proclamation calls us to living faith, that is, to a penitent and obedient faith …. Those who by God’s electing grace respond to the gospel call with penitent and obedient faith are the righteous who will enter into eternal life” (pp. 100-1).

“Those who are forgiven and who are transformed into covenant keepers are the righteous who will inherit eternal life” (p. 110).

John F. MacArthur Jr.

The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1988):

“A believing heart surrenders to the Master with great joy … He is glad to give it all up for the kingdom. That is the nature of saving faith … Saving faith retains no privileges. It clings to no cherished sins, no treasured possessions, no secret self-indulgences. It is an unconditional surrender, a willingness to do anything the Lord demands … It denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith … True faith is humble, submissive obedience” (pp. 139f).

“The biblical concept of faith is inseparable from obedience. ‘Believe’ is synonymous with ‘obey’ … ‘To believe’ is ‘to obey’” (pp. 174-75).

“Grace is the power of God to fulfill our New Covenant duties” (p. 31).

The Federal Vision

The Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference titled “The Federal Vision” held at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe, Louisiana (2002): Douglas Wilson; John Barach; Steve Wilkins; Rich Lusk; Steve Schlissel

James Jordan: “Nothing in the Bible says that Adam was supposed to earn glory. He was, rather, called to remain faithful and mature ... My thesis is that what Adam was supposed to provide, and what Jesus has provided for us, is maturity. That is to say, the new status that Jesus provides for us does not come about because He earned something Adam failed to earn, but because He persevered in faith toward the Father until he was mature ... Far from earning His exaltation, Jesus received it as a free grace or gift from the Father ... There is no ‘merit’ theology in the Bible. There is no covenant of works”  (“Merit Versus Maturity,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins [Athanasius Press, 2004], pp. 153, 155, 193, 195).

Rich Lusk: “In the covenant construction advocated by Dr. Smith ... [t]he covenant of grace is simply the covenant of works fulfilled by a sinless substitute provided by God himself. While there is much to appreciate about the symmetry of such a covenantal scheme, it seems fraught with biblical difficulties ... It ends up looking something like this:  In Genesis 1-2, God constructed Pelagian machinery for man to earn his way to blessing ... Jesus is the successful Pelagian, the One Guy in the history of the world who succeeded in pulling off the works righteousness plan” (The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, ed. E. Calvin Beisner [Knox Theological Seminary, 2004], pp. 136-37).

Steve Schlissel: “‘For not the hearers of the Law [unbelieving Jews] are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the Law [believing Gentiles and Jews] will be justified.’ This statement is not a theoretical proposition concerning some meritorious method of being righteous before God. The presuppositions undergirding Paul’s statement include the facts that the Law is ‘obeyable,’ that truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify” (The Federal Vision, p. 260). “Obedience and faith are the same thing, biblically speaking” (The Auburn Avenue Theology, p. 26).

Joint Federal Vision Statement (2007):

“We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone.”

“We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey … We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.”

“We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith.”

Doug Wilson, “Living Faith” (2008) https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/living-faith.html - “I am treating obedient faith and living faith as synonymous … it is obedient in its life, and in that living condition it is the instrument of our justification.”

Progressive Covenantalism

Ardel Caneday, “Covenantal Life with God from Eden to Holy City,” ch. 4 in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, ed. Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker (B&H, 2016).

Caneday: “Gentry and Wellum affirm that the blending of God’s sovereign promise making and covenant keeping with the conditional stipulations of obedience is integral to the biblical story line beginning in Eden and reaching consummation in the Holy City” (p. 102).

“This chapter disavows the notion that all of Scripture consists of two isolatable messages: law, consisting of God’s demands, and gospel, composed of God’s gracious giving. Instead, it argues that the formulation of covenant stipulations remains the same across the covenants while the content of stipulations changes … True, God unconditionally establishes his various covenants with humans, but each covenant entails provisions with stipulations that both promise blessings to all who obey (remaining in saving covenant relationship with God) and announce curses upon the disobedient” (p. 103).

“Inheriting God’s promises is always conditional, for he grants his covenant blessing to those who, by his own grace, observe stipulations that require persevering, obedient belief. From Adam’s habitation of the Edenic garden with access to the tree of life to inheritance of our eternal habitation, God’s holy city, with free access to the tree of life, covenantal life with God always entails stipulations expressed as commands or conditionals” (p. 105).

“God’s word, entailing promise and threat, required Adam to believe, to trust the Lord, in order that he might obey God and receive his covenant blessing” (p. 108).

Caneday agrees with John Murray in setting aside the term “covenant of works,” in order to uphold the notion that the “covenant of creation” was gracious and did not entail merit (pp. 109-10).

He further rejects the notion that the Mosaic law was a republication of the covenant of works, again so as to uphold the notion that the old covenant was gracious. “The Mosaic covenant is not to be construed as entailing merit in any sense” (p. 109-10).

“Concerning their content, new covenant stipulations of repentance, faith, obedience, or doing good are distinctively different from old covenant stipulations. The new, with the law engraved on the heart, stipulates obeying Christ Jesus as Lord; the old, etched on stone tablets, stipulates obeying God’s covenant commandments that feature a panoply of heavenly shadows and copies. Though the content of stipulations differs, their form does not, for both new and old covenants employ variously formatted stipulations including imperatives and conditionals. ‘If you obey, then I will bless you’ or ‘Do this, and you will live.’ Thus, to claim that the stipulations of the new covenant are different formulations structurally—‘Do this because you are blessed’ versus ‘Do this in order to be blessed’—is not accurate” (p. 111).

“Grammatically, how the old and new covenants express stipulations as well as blessings or curses does not differ. Consider Leviticus 18:5: ‘Keep my decrees and laws [covenant stipulation], for the person who obeys them will live by them [covenant blessing]. I am the Lord.’ Now ponder Paul’s stipulation to Timothy: ‘Watch you life and doctrine closely [covenant stipulation]. Persevere in them, because if you do [covenant stipulation], you will save both yourself and your hearers [covenant blessing]’ (1 Tim 4:16)” (p. 116).

“The difference between the old and new covenants is not how the stipulations are grammatically structured or formed or that the former stipulates obedience and the new does not. Nor is the difference that the law covenant threatens divine curses and promises divine blessing with conditional stipulations but that the grace covenant in Christ issues no stipulations. Clearly the New Testament is filled with gospel threats and promises addressed to believers, which if heeded inviolably lead to eternal life but if ignored will end in condemnation” (p. 117).

“If we obey God’s stipulations proclaimed in and through his new covenant in Christ Jesus, God’s Word assures us that we shall have access to the tree of life in God’s Holy City. But if we do not heed God’s threatening stipulations, we will be cast outside, and our share in the tree of life and in the Holy City will be taken from us” (p. 126).

In sum, “Gospel as New Law” is the view that:

The grace of God is primary, even before the fall.

Even before the fall, God established his covenant with Adam as a gracious covenant relationship that involves promises but also involves certain conditions if we are to enjoy the fulfillment of those promises.

After the fall, God continues to the same pattern. The details of the specific requirements differ, but same covenant relationship is continued with Abraham and with Israel under the Law. 

The Old Law is summarized in the demand: “The one who does these things [Mosaic commandments] will live by them” (Lev 18:5). God did not require perfect obedience but loyalty and covenant faithfulness.

The Gospel is a New Law that, like the Old Law, demands obedient faith and threatens a curse for those who are unfaithful.

What makes the New Law “new” is that the burden of the ceremonies and shadows of the Old Law are no longer required.

The sentence “we are justified by faith” is affirmed, but faith is defined as living, active, and obedient, so in the end it actually means “we are justified by works.”

At each point, God raised up a theologian to answer the “Gospel as New Law” error:

Against the Judaizers – Paul

Against Pelagius – Augustine

Against Rome – Martin Luther

Against Baxter – John Owen

Against Shepherd – Meredith Kline

Calvin on the Validity of Roman Catholic Baptism

Institutes 4.15.16-17

16. Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by

the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God

himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither

gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent,

if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger

was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments,

let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who

measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in

the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were

baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism.

Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism

we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the

Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever

it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant

of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with

their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they

invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism

was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the

flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews

that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so

as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection

that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that

it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done

to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God

though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions,

and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when

they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised

anew.

17. Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that

they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the

word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving,

we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the

promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men

should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true (Rom. 3:3, 4); though all were

lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us

nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected.

Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness

of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that

the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission

of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise

was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it

was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore,

when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning

another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and

sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of

heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of

the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable.

Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which

God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the

hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted

and extinguished.

Institutes 4.2.10-12

10. With regard to the second point, our objections are still stronger. For when the

Church is considered in that particular point of view as the Church, whose judgment we

are bound to revere, whose authority acknowledge, whose admonitions obey, whose censures

dread, whose communion religiously cultivate in every respect, we cannot concede that they

have a Church, without obliging ourselves to subjection and obedience. Still we are willing

to concede what the Prophets conceded to the Jews and Israelites of their day, when with

them matters were in a similar, or even in a better condition. For we see how they uniformly

exclaim against their meetings as profane conventicles, to which it is not more lawful for

them to assent than to abjure God (Isa. 1:14). And certainly if those were churches, it follows,

that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in Israel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and those of like character

in Judah, whom the prophets, priests, and people of their day, hated and execrated more

than the uncircumcised, were aliens from the Church of God. If those were churches, then

the Church was no longer the pillar of the truth, but the stay of falsehood, not the tabernacle

of the living God, but a receptacle of idols. They were, therefore, under the necessity of refusing

consent to their meetings, since consent was nothing else than impious conspiracy

against God. For this same reason, should any one acknowledge those meetings of the present

day, which are contaminated by idolatry, superstition, and impious doctrine, as churches,

full communion with which a Christian must maintain so far as to agree with them even in

doctrine, he will greatly err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys belongs to them,

whereas the keys are inseparably connected with the word which they have put to flight.

Again, if they are churches, they can claim the promise of Christ, “Whatsoever ye bind,”

&c.; whereas, on the contrary, they discard from their communion all who sincerely profess

themselves the servants of Christ. Therefore, either the promise of Christ is vain, or in this

respect, at least, they are not churches. In fine, instead of the ministry of the word, they have

schools of impiety, and sinks of all kinds of error. Therefore, in this point of view, they either

are not churches, or no badge will remain by which the lawful meetings of the faithful can

be distinguished from the meetings of Turks.

11. Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews certain special privileges

of a Church, so in the present day we deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church

which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. When the Lord

had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was preserved not so much by them as by its

own strength, supported by which it withstood their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty

and constancy of the divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there and

his faith could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned

by their impure hands as not still to he a true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Hence

the children who were born to them the Lord called his own (Ezek. 16:20), though, unless

by special blessing, they in no respect belonged to him. So having deposited his covenant

in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when these countries were oppressed by the

tyranny of Antichrist, He, in order that his covenant might remain inviolable, first preserved

baptism there as an evidence of the covenant;—baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains

its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that

there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. But as in

pulling down buildings the foundations and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did

not suffer Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to level it with the

ground (though, to punish the ingratitude of men who had despised his word, he allowed

a fearful shaking and dismembering to take place), but was pleased that amid the devastation

the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.

12. Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the

Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only

relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred

rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold

that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:4); we regard the Roman

Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. By

placing his seat in the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as

to destroy the name either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious that we do

not at all deny that churches remain under his tyranny; churches, however, which by sacrilegious

impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly

doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where Christ lies

half-buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost

abolished; where, in short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of

Babylon rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as

the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn

and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially

whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the

other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are

effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate

Church.

Is the Mosaic Covenant an Administration of the Covenant of Grace?

As my readers know, I hold to republication – the view that the works principle in the pre-fall covenant with Adam was republished at the typological level in the Mosaic economy. Because of this, many ask, “Can you affirm that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace?” Sometimes the question comes with an attorney-like insistence, Yes or No! But this is not a question that can be answered Yes or No without qualifications. So here is my best attempt to answer that question.

I think it is valid to say that the Mosaic covenant was a “unique” administration of the covenant of grace. I borrow the term “unique” from Michael Horton who uses it to take account of Paul’s teaching that the law was a temporary guardian until Christ (Gal 3:19-24). As Dr. Horton wrote in a recent four-views book: “The Sinai covenant is a unique administration of the covenant of grace in that it offers a parenthetical-typological system for the church’s adolescence.”[1]

What makes it a unique administration of the covenant of grace is that it has a broad and a narrow aspect. The Mosaic covenant in the broad sense is the Mosaic economy as a whole, that is, the Mosaic economy as continuing the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:17) and as including the sacrificial system which provided a means of atonement for sin. In that broad sense, the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. But it also has a narrow aspect, and that is what makes it unique. The Mosaic covenant in the narrow sense is the same as Paul’s term “the law,” the commandments along with the offered blessings for obedience and curses threatened for disobedience (Lev 18:5; Deut 28). In this sense the law was a temporary guardian until the Seed should come. It was given to drive Israel to Christ and thus for an ultimately gracious purpose.

This language of the broad and narrow sense of “Mosaic covenant” is fairly standard. Dr. Horton says it derives from Calvin:

Calvin himself acknowledges these two senses: “The law has a twofold meaning; it sometimes includes the whole of what has been taught by Moses, and sometimes that part only which was peculiar to his ministration, which consisted of precepts, rewards, and punishments …. Whenever the word law is thus strictly taken, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ: and then we must consider what the law contains, as separate from the gospel.”[2]

In their helpful book on covenant theology, Michael Brown and Zach Keele explain it this way:

To understand the Mosaic covenant properly, we must view it in both its broad and narrow senses. In its broad sense, the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace …. In its narrow sense, however, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of law …. We must first focus on the Mosaic covenant in its narrower sense (that is, law) to fit it properly into God’s overall purpose of the covenant of grace …. God gave the strict Mosaic covenant to show Israel and all humanity that no man can be justified by the works of the law (Rom 3:19-20).[3]

Complementary to the broad vs. narrow language, there is Meredith Kline’s language of the two layers or strata of the Mosaic economy.

At the same time, Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum. There was a foundational stratum having to do with the personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation and this underlying stratum, continuous with all preceding and succeeding administrations of the Lord’s Covenant of Grace with the church, was informed by the principle of grace (cf., e.g., Rom 4:16). Because the Abrahamic covenant of promise found continuity in the Mosaic order at this underlying level, it was not abrogated by the latter. The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum.[4]

Now perhaps another follow-up question may arise: “Is the entire Mosaic covenant, in both its narrow sense and in its broader sense, an administration of the covenant of grace?” I can affirm that, but I would want to clarify the two distinct ways in which “the narrow sense” and “the broader sense” are related to the covenant of grace.

I affirm that the Mosaic covenant in the broader sense (the entire Mosaic dispensation or economy) is an administration of the covenant of grace. There are a myriad of ways we see this. We see it in the prologue to the Decalogue, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” We see it in the intercession of Moses who appealed to the Abrahamic promise (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27). We see it in the fact that the two tablets of the law were placed inside the ark of the covenant under the mercy seat (Exod 25:16; 40:20; Deut 10:2, 5; Heb 9:4). But most clearly we see it in the Levitical sacrificial system (the Passover Lamb, the Day of Atonement, etc.), which was a sacramental means of grace by which the Israelites received ahead of time, by faith, the benefits of the work of the Messiah to come. As Kline notes, “Elements of redemptive grace were present in and around the transaction [of the Sinaitic  covenant],” and he goes on to cite the prologue of the Decalogue and the location of the tablets under the mercy seat as two chief examples.[5]

But what about the Mosaic covenant in the narrow sense? Can it also rightly be called an administration of the covenant of grace? I can see how it could, but I would want to clarify what that means. It is a foundational Reformed teaching that the law (“Do this and live”) is not, in and of itself, the covenant of grace. The Mosaic law is a republication of the principle of the covenant of works. The law says, “Do this and live” (Lev 18:5). The gospel (the covenant of grace) says, “Christ has done it; receive it and live.” But although the law is not the gospel, it was given to advance the covenant of grace. It does this by showing us that we cannot be justified by the works of the law and thus driving us to Christ. The law was a temporary guardian, the historical matrix for the incarnation, so that the Seed might be born under it, obey it, endure its curse, and thus fulfill it in our place (Gal 3:13; 4:4; Rom 10:4).

Horton quotes Geerhardus Vos:

As Vos states, “The covenant with Israel served in an emphatic manner to recall the strict demands of the covenant of works … It truly contained the content of the covenant of works. But—and one should certainly note this—it contains this content as made serviceable for a particular period of the covenant of grace.”[6]

Horton then adds his own comment fleshing this out:

Although the Sinaitic covenant is based on law, it is only such in the interests of holding out the promise of the covenant of grace. The ultimate promise of a worldwide family of Abraham in a renewed creation is unconditional in its basis, while the continuing existence of the national theocracy as a type of that everlasting covenant depended on Israel’s obedience. Therefore, the Sinai covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace in that it served to further the interests of that gracious promise.[7]

With that qualification—“in that it served to further the interests of that gracious promise”—the law can be called an administration of the covenant of grace, even though the law, in and of itself, is not the covenant of grace. Kline put it this way: “The Law covenant was a sub-administration of the Covenant of Grace, designed to further the purpose and program of the gospel.”[8]

 

[1] Michael S. Horton, “A Covenant Theology Response,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, ed. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 197.

[2] Horton, “Covenant Theology,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 38; quoting Calvin’s commentary on Romans (at Rom 10:5).

[3] Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele, Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored (Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2012), 102-4.

[4] Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 321.

[5] Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 23-24.

[6] Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, Single-Volume Edition, trans. and ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 348 (2.130 in the multi-volume edition).

[7] Horton, “Covenant Theology,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 47.

[8] Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 128.

Republication, Part 5: Freed from the Law as a Covenant

There are a number of passages in Galatians and Romans where Paul teaches that believers are freed from the law:

Gal 2:19: Through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God

Gal 3:23-25: We are no longer under a guardian

Gal 4:4: Born under the law to redeem those who were under the law

Gal 5:18: If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law

Rom 6:14-15: We are not under law but under grace

Rom 7:1-6: We have died to the law through the body of Christ

Antinomians take these texts to mean that believers are freed from the moral law as rule of life. A better explanation is to utilize the concept of Republication and to suggest that what Paul is affirming is that we are freed from the law as a covenant of works. On this view, Paul is not denying the third use of the law (which he affirms, e.g., in Rom 6:15-22; 8:4).

This is the standard Reformed position, as seen in the Westminster Confession: “Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly” (WCF 19.6; cp. WLC #97).

Republication enables us to answer the antinomian interpretation of the Pauline “not under law” texts. Some have tried to get around this by suggesting that when Paul says we are “not under law” he means we are “not under legalism” or we have been “freed from a legalistic misinterpretation and abuse of the law.” But that theory breaks down when one realizes that Paul affirms that we died to the law through union with Christ in his death and resurrection. He does not say that God delivered us from a cognitive misunderstanding and misuse of the law. He says God delivered us from the law itself “through the body of Christ” (Rom 7:4). The Mosaic law pronounces a curse on all who do not keep it perfectly (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26), but Christ “became a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). Christ was “born under the law to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal 4:4). Thus, “the law” in these passages cannot be a “legalistic misuse of the law” but “the Mosaic law as a covenant of works.”

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 4: The Breakable Covenant - Jeremiah 31

One of Kline’s most powerful arguments for Republication is the fact that the Old Covenant was breakable: “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 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 YHWH” (Jer 31:31-32). Though YHWH was their husband, Israel was unfaithful, the covenant itself was broken, and YHWH divorced Israel (Jer 3:1, 8; cp. Hosea 1:9; 2:2). But if the Old Covenant was breakable, as Jeremiah plainly says that it was, how can it be the covenant of grace pure and simple?

Kline writes:

Paul was resuming Jeremiah’s classic analysis of the covenants when he contrasted the new covenant to the old (the old viewed in the restricted but distinctive terms of its typological dimension). In contrast to the new covenant which could not be broken, founded as it was on God’s sovereign, forgiving grace in Christ, the old covenant, according to Jeremiah, was breakable (Jer 31:32). Individual members of the new covenant community might prove false and be broken off as branches from a tree while the covenant tree remained intact, pruned and flourishing. But the old covenant’s typological kingdom order as such could be and was terminated. The axe of God’s judgment was ultimately laid unto the roots of the tree and the tree itself was felled. Jeremiah’s identification of the old covenant as breakable was the equivalent of an assertion that it lacked the guarantee afforded by the grace principle and was instead based on the principle of works (Kingdom Prologue, 322).

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 3: Paul Teaches It in Galatians 3

I would argue that Republication is taught by Paul in Galatians 3. The Judaizers viewed the Mosaic covenant as an addition to the Abrahamic covenant showing, as claimed, that the blessing must be received by obeying the Mosaic law. But Paul corrects them by explaining that the Abrahamic covenant is fundamentally a gracious, promissory covenant in which the blessing is received by faith. Although the Mosaic covenant (“the law”) came 430 years after the promise, it did not annul the prior Abrahamic covenant of promise ratified by God’s self-maledictory oath. Why then the law? It was “added” (top layer) until the Seed should come, who would be born under it to bear its curse and fulfill its demands in our place, thereby securing the blessing.

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 2: The Two Layers and Typological Legibility

Republication depends on the notion that the old covenant order was composed of two layers: the national-typological (upper) layer and the personal-soteriological (lower) layer. At the lower layer, the old testament saints were saved by faith in the Messiah to come as part of the one covenant of grace that begins with the first promise of the gospel after the Fall (Gen 3:15) and continues unbroken into the new covenant. The works principle in the old covenant, the probationary arrangement akin to the Adamic covenant of works, was confined to the upper, national-typological layer. National Israel, as a corporate Adam, was on probation in the land. Israel had to be righteous in order to retain the land. But where does Kline get this idea of the two layers? It comes from the concept of two-level fulfillment.

And what about the problem that Israel was far from being perfectly righteous and yet retained the land for a long time prior to the exile? This issue is explained by Vos and Kline in terms of the concept of typological legibility:

Vos: “The theocracy typified nothing short of the perfected kingdom of God, the consummate state of Heaven .... Law-observance, if not the ground for receiving, is yet made the ground for retention of the privileges inherited. Here it can not, of course, be denied that a real connection exists .... The connection ... belongs not to the legal sphere of merit, but to the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression. As stated above, the abode of Israel in Canaan typified the heavenly, perfected state of God’s people. Under these circumstances the ideal of absolute conformity to God’s law of legal holiness had to be upheld .... The requirement could not be lowered. When apostasy on a general scale took place, they could not remain in the promised land” (Biblical Theology, 126-27).

Kline: “The typological objective in the case of the Israelite kingdom was to teach that righteousness and prosperity will be conjoined in the consummated kingdom. For the purpose of keeping that symbolic message readable, persistent wholesale apostasy could not be allowed to accompany possession of the promised inheritance. But, on the other hand, the pedagogical point of the typological arrangement could be satisfactorily made, in a positive fashion, in spite of the inevitable imperfections of the people individually and as a nation. In meting out the blessings and curses of the Mosaic Covenant, the Lord applied the standard of symbolical appropriateness or typological legibility” (Kingdom Prologue, 239-40).

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Republication, Part 1: What Is It?

Republication is a debated topic today and is often misunderstood. The idea is not that the Adamic covenant of works was republished for Israel at Sinai without change. Kline argues that national Israel was “under probation in a covenant of works” (Kingdom Prologue, 352), not “the” covenant of works. That is why I pefer to speak of “typological republication.” The key to making sense of this is to recognize that the Mosaic economy was complex. More things are going on there than simply administering the one covenant of grace. According to Kline, “The old covenant order was composed of two strata,” and “The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum” (KP 321). The foundational layer, the one covenant of grace, continues unbroken from Genesis 3:15 on. But at the secondary layer, a works principle is reenacted with national Israel in order to set the covenantal context for the exile and the coming of Christ, who was born under the law that he might perfectly fulfill it and win the eternal inheritance for us.

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Covenant Theology in BT Perspective: Abrahamic, Mosaic, New

Covenant Theology in biblical theological perspective observes the historical progression and interconnections between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. Leviticus 26 is a critical passage, for here the outpouring of the vengeance of the Mosaic Covenant is predicted. But Israel’s restoration after the exile, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Lev 26:42), is also foretold, which gives rise to the hope of a New Covenant. This covenantal triangle is the engine that drives the narrative arc of redemptive history, with the great preaching prophets (e.g., Isaiah) standing at the intersection, looking back on the ruins of the Old Covenant and forward to the glory of the coming New Covenant in Christ.

Video:

 

Audio:

 

Meredith Kline’s Biblical Theological Grid

This episode of the Upper Register podcast is a visual presentation that builds Meredith Kline’s Biblical Theological Grid from Eden to the New Creation. This is how Kline conceived of the organism of special revelation, the step-by-step building of the Lego set, if you will. This is based on Professor Kline’s own chalkboard drawings at Westminster Seminary California around 1993. It’s not an exact reproduction, and I did make some adjustments, but it is pretty close. Due to the highly visual nature of this episode, you will definitely want to watch the YouTube version.

Download the PDF of Kline’s BT Grid.

Video:

 

Audio: