The Upper Register

Republication podcast interview

I want to thank Peter Bell and Nick Fullwiler for having me on the Guilt Grace Gratitude podcast to discuss the topic of Republication.

Get the episode on Apple, Spotify, or watch it on YouTube:

We covered the following topics:

• Defining Republication (see my 5/29/2022 blog post for more)
• The broader covenantal context of Republication
• The Scriptural basis of Republication
• How Republication is consistent with the Westminster Confession
• How Republication has been misunderstood
• Errors that flow from rejecting Republication (Theonomy and Federal Vision)
• How Republication helps us understand the Gospel

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 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:

 

The Usefulness of Biblical Theology for Systematics

Systematic Theology draws a circle and examines the logical relationships between doctrines; Biblical Theology draws a line and traces the historical progress of special revelation. Biblical Theology does not replace Systematic Theology but it supports and strengthens it by helping us to see the true Scriptural basis of our doctrines. For example, how do we know there is such a thing as “the covenant of grace” and “the covenant of works”? Are these just logically derived theological constructs, or are they really taught in Scripture? Biblical Theology is useful for Systematics because it shows how doctrines are not ad hoc church dogmas supported by a handful of doubtful proof texts, but are deeply imbedded in the Organism of special revelation.

As Geerhardus Vos said: “Biblical Theology relieves to some extent the unfortunate situation that even the fundamental doctrines of the faith should seem to depend mainly on the testimony of isolated proof-texts. There exists a higher ground on which conflicting religious views can measure themselves as to their Scriptural legitimacy. In the long run that system will hold the field which can be proven to have grown organically from the main stem of revelation, and to be interwoven with the very fibre of Biblical religion” (Biblical Theology, 17-18).

Video:

 

Audio:

 

 

Witsius on the Subservient Repetition of the Covenant of Works 3

I have quoted from Witsius’s work, Irenical Animadversions, not to be confused with his more famous work, The Economy of the Covenants. The latter book is a masterful overview of covenant or federal theology in all of its aspects. But the former book is Witsius’s attempt to referee a debate taking place in England in the last decade of the 17th century between the neonomian Richard Baxter (and his followers) and several orthodox Reformed brothers whom Baxter had accused of being antinomians. (The accused were defenders of the book Christ Alone Exalted by Tobias Crisp--men like his son Samuel Crisp, Isaac Chauncy, John Flavel, Robert Traill, the Reformed Baptist Benjamin Keach, and others.) Baxter accused the orthodox men of being antinomians because of their standard Protestant belief that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. Even evangelical obedience is excluded from justifying faith, even though evangelical obedience is the necessary fruit of justification. (For more on the historical background, see John Fesko’s helpful exposition in Ch. 18 of Beyond Calvin [RHT 20; V&R, 2012]).

Now the key point I wish to make is, Witsius discusses his understanding of the covenant of works (in both its Adamic and Mosaic forms) precisely in order to demonstrate, against Baxter’s neonomianism, that we are justified by faith alone, excluding all moral good works. Witsius saw the payoff of the Mosaic repetition of the covenant of works in providing clarity on sola fide. Recall how Witsius began. This is his topic sentence:

“And hence we must judge what Paul understands by the law of works, what by the works of the law, and what by faith” (86).

In the first post, I quoted Witsius on the first question – what Paul means by “the law of works.” Witsius’s answer is that “the law of works” refers to the covenant of works, which was originally made with Adam before the Fall and was later repeated in the Mosaic covenant, not to be the means of the justification of the Israelites, but to show them their inability and lead them to Christ. The Mosaic form of the covenant of works was “subservient to the covenant of grace.”

I want to continue quoting Witsius, moving now to his handling of the second question – what Paul means by “the works of the law.” This is where the payoff for sola fide comes in.

“Having found therefore what the law of works is, it is easy to perceive what are the works of the law: viz. all the good deeds performed according to the prescription of the law, whether they consist in the duties of moral virtues, which are the works of righteousness that we have done, as Paul speaks, Tit. 3:5. or in the performance of certain typical expiation of sins: especially, if they be done with the opinion of obtaining life or pardon by these works.

“I know not by what right the very learned man takes it for granted, that by the works of the law, which Paul excludes from justification, are understood works before conversion, done without faith, by our own strength; which popish fiction the protestant champions have so often and so solidly refuted, that it is amazing, a protestant is found who again patronizes it” (88-89).

The argument is that Paul’s “we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law” teaching merely excludes from justifying faith such works as are done prior to conversion and apart from faith, thereby allowing evangelical, Spirit-wrought obedience to be part of justifying faith. In response to this “popish fiction,” Witsius quotes Calvin at length, but I will shorten the Calvin quote to the key section (and I will use the Beveridge translation):

“In the antithesis between legal and gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (Gal 3:11-12). For he says that the righteousness of the law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again (Rom 10:5-9) .... Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith” (Calvin, Institutes 3.11.14).

After quoting Calvin, Witsius adds:

“The question [in the controversy that Paul had with the Jews over justification] was this, Whether the Jews could be justified, provided they observed the law of Moses to the utmost of their power, and made these satisfactions for their offences, which the ceremonial law prescribed. But this the Apostle denies: resting on that axiom, that the righteousness which can be sustained before God’s tribunal, must be absolutely perfect: but since no works of any men are such, he concludes, that no works of whatever kind, can contribute anything to the obtaining of justification” (91-92).

What does Witsius mean when he says that Paul was “resting on that axiom, that the righteousness which can be sustained before God’s tribunal, must be absolutely perfect”? He can only mean the works principle, “the law of works,” that he had already established as being in effect in the Adamic covenant and repeated in the Mosaic in a manner subservient to the covenant of grace. Thus, unless one recognizes that the Mosaic covenant is informed in some way by this “axiom” (Lev 18:5 and Deut 27:26 as quoted by Paul in Gal 3:10-12 and Rom 10:5-6), one will not be able to shut the door against neonomianism. This is exactly what Kline saw, and why he emphasized the doctrine of republication in his critique of Norman Shepherd and Daniel Fuller.

Witsius on the Subservient Repetition of the Covenant of Works 2

I want to clarify my motive in posting the Witsius quote. I was not trying to argue that Witsius is the same as Kline, or that Witsius decides the question of what the WCF means.

My opening sentences were: “The great 17th century Reformed theologian, Herman Witsius, believed in the doctrine that now goes by the infelicitous name ‘republication.’ He taught that there was a repetition of the Adamic covenant of works in the Mosaic economy ....”

Some may take “republication” as a reference to one particular formulation of republication, namely, Kline’s. But I do not have such a narrow definition. For me, “republication” (or “repetition” to use Witsius’s term) is a broader category that includes Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Petto, Hodge, and many others ... as well as Kline. I distinguish between a doctrine and the way a doctrine is formulated. We all hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are a variety of ways of formulating that doctrine, some more scriptural than others.

So here. Covenant theology is deeply indebted to Paul’s teaching that the Mosaic law contains a works principle (Lev 18:5; Deut 27:26). But there are a variety of ways in which covenant theologians have historically tried to formulate the concept of the works principle in the Mosaic economy. For example, Turretin borrows a page from Aristotle and comes up with the substance vs. accidents formulation: the Mosaic covenant is, as to its substance, an administration of the covenant of grace, but the repetition of the works principle is present in the accidental features, or external economy, of that covenant (see his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Twelfth Topic, Seventh Question). 

Then there is the “subservient covenant” view of Bolton and others. I take Witsius to be either in this camp, or at least similar to it, because he does not see the Mosaic covenant as nothing but a covenant of works, nor as nothing but a covenant of grace, although it presupposes both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (The Economy of the Covenants, vol. 2, pp. 184-6, in the English translation by Crookshank, printed in 1822), and because he says that the repetition of the Adamic covenant of works is “subservient to the covenant of grace.”

Kline would formulate the works principle differently from all of the above, using his concept of the two layers, with the typological intrusion of the works principle at the top layer. 

These are different formulations, but they are genetically similar views, as distinct from those who deny the works principle in the Mosaic economy altogether. Witsius is widely regarded as a reliable, orthodox Reformed theologian. He is not a fringe character. My point in quoting Witsius, then, is to make the point that the republication doctrine (as it is called today) is a major and recognized position in the historical development of covenant theology. Therefore it should not be viewed as heretical or dangerous or as hostile to the Reformed system of doctrine.

Witsius on the Subservient Repetition of the Covenant of Works

The great 17th century Reformed theologian, Herman Witsius, believed in the doctrine that now goes by the infelicitous name “republication.” He taught that there was a repetition of the Adamic covenant of works in the Mosaic economy, not intended to be the means of the salvation of the Israelites, but to show them their sin and lead them to Christ. The “do this and live” principle (Lev 18:5) was “subservient” to the covenant of grace.

And hence we must judge what Paul understands by the law of works, what by the works of the law, and what by faith. The law of works is that which demands works to be done by man himself, as the condition of life, or the cause of claiming the reward: the tenor of which is this, The man who doeth these things shall live in them, Rom 10:5. Such a law was given to Adam of old, who, if he had persevered in his integrity, would have obtained a right to eternal life by his works of righteousness.

The same doctrine Moses repeated in his ministry. For he also inculcated the same precepts upon which the covenant of works had been built: he both repeated the same solemn saying, He who doeth these things shall live in them, Lev 18:5, and also added another, Cursed be he who shall not perform the words of this law in doing them, Deut 27:26. That this is the curse of the law, as it stands opposed to the covenant of grace, Paul teacheth, Gal 3:10, which, however, is not so to be understood, as if God had intended, by the ministry of Moses, to make a new covenant of works with Israel, with a view to obtain righteousness and salvation by such a covenant. But that repetition of the covenant of works was designed to convince the Israelites of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to teach them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to cleave to Christ: and thus it was subservient to the covenant of grace, Rom 10:4.

Herman Witsius, Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain Under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians (trans. Thomas Bell; Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807; originally published in Latin in 1696), 86-87.